Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Sheffield Corporation Bill.

Read the Third time, and passed.

Worksop Corporation Bill [Lords].

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

South Wales Electric Power Bill.

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (NORTHAMPTON) BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the borough of Northampton," presented by Sir Hilton Young; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 41.]

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA,

SITUATION.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India the latest information he has as to the political situation in India?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he has any further statement to make as to the political situation in India?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): I am circulating a statement covering the events of the past week.

Following is the statement:

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA'S STATEMENT

for week ending 12th March.

There has been no marked change in the situation during the past week.

In Delhi, where Ahrar activities led to clashes with the police on the 11th and 12th March, there is at present some local excitement. In Bengal a crowd of about 2,500 made an attack on a sub-registry office in the Midnapore district but were dispersed.

Tribal unrest among the Mohmands has caused some recrudescence of the Red Shirt Movement in part of the Peshawar district, but the latest reports indicate a fair chance of the tribal situation clearing up.

BURMA.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India the present situation in regard to the disturbances in Burma?

Sir S. HOARE: The Government of Burma report that the past week has been uneventful, and nothing of importance has occurred.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House how many people have been sentenced to death in the past two months?

Sir S. HOARE: I think that the hon. Member has a question down on that subject. In any case, I answered it last week.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir MERVYN MANNINGHAM-BULLER: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for India on what date he intends to introduce legislation for the purpose of separating Burma from India?

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for India on what date it is proposed to introduce the necessary legislation for the separation of Burma from India?

Sir S. HOARE: It is the intention to introduce legislation at the earliest practicable date after the decision of the people of Burma on the question of separation from India is made known in the light of the election to be held next autumn.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for India how many persons have been executed in Burma since the commencement of the rebellion in December, 1930; and can any statement be made on the situation in Burma at the present time?

Sir S. HOARE: I would refer the hon. Member, as regards the first part of the question, to the answer given to the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) on the 9th March; and as regards the second part, to that already given to Question No. 3.

Mr. WILLIAMS: As this rebellion is largely due to sordid economic conditions, could not some other more humane method be found of solving the problem instead of executing people?

Sir S. HOARE: If the hon. Member will look at the table which I gave last week, he will see that great care has been exercised in scrutinising all death sentences, and that in only a small proportion of the death sentences has the sentence been carried out.

EDUCATION (TEACHERS).

Major BEAUMONT THOMAS: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India what
steps the Government are taking to ensure that only loyal supporters of law and order are employed in the teaching staffs of all educational establishments in receipt of Government grants?

Sir S. HOARE: As education is a transferred subject it is for the governors of the various provinces acting with their ministers to decide what conditions shall be attached to the payment of grants-in-aid to educational institutions. It has come to my notice that in certain cases in which it was know that members of the staff or some of the students had been engaging in undesirable activities, the authorities of the institution concerned have been informed that the grant-in-aid would be reduced or withheld until an improvement had been effected.

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he is in a position to state the personnel of the Indian delegation to the forthcoming International Labour Conference at Geneva?

Sir S. HOARE: The matter is under discussion with the Government of India.

ATTACK ON ARMOURIES, CHITTAGONG.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for India the reasons for the decision of the Government not to publish the report of the committee appointed to inquire into the incidents which accompanied the disturbances in Chittagong in August last?

Sir S. HOARE: It was decided unanimously by the Government of Bengal that it would not be in the public interest to publish this report.

EMERGENCY POWERS.

Mr. McENTEE: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the instructions contained in the despatch of the Government of India to the provincial Governments dealing with the use of emergency powers, dated the 9th February last, have been published so as to become known to the community in India through the Press?

Sir S. HOARE: So far as I am aware the letter in question has not been published.

PICKETING, BOMBAY.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether active picketing still continues in Bombay; and whether the powers granted by the ordinances are being fully applied by the Government of this province?

Sir S. HOARE: The latest report from the Government of Bombay shows that though there is still some picketing in Bombay there has been an improvement in this respect. As regards the second part of the question, I am satisfied that the local government are using their powers energetically and effectively in very difficult circumstances.

Sir A. KNOX: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether it is not possible to get at the funds of these rich men who subsidise the whole thing, and pay these unfortunate coolies to carry it out?

Sir S. HOARE: Yes, we are trying to do so. There is power under the ordinances; the Government of Bombay have that power, and they are taking every means to carry it into effect.

Mr. WARD LAW-MILNE: Is it not the case that the powers referred to are very difficult to put into operation, and will the right hon. Gentleman consider making some alteration in the law?

Sir S. HOARE: If my hon. Friend will make a suggestion to me, I will consider it with great care, but, as he knows, it is a difficult and complicated question.

Sir A. KNOX: Is it a fact that the Ahmadabad mill-owners are encouraging this picketing?

COMMUNAL REPRESENTATION.

Sir A. KNOX: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether any agreement has been yet reached in India regarding communal representation?

Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir.

Sir A. KNOX: Is it the intention of His Majesty's Government to intervene in this matter, or to leave the different communities to fight it out, and to keep the ring as it were?

Sir S. HOARE: The position is as stated in the Prime Minister's statement at the end of the Round Table Conference.

SOUTH AFRICA (INDIANS).

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he is now in a position to make a statement with regard to the results of the Round Table Conference at Cape Town between the representatives of India and the representatives of the Union Government of South Africa on the position of the Indian community in South Africa?

Sir S. HOARE: The Government of India and the Union Government are still considering the question of making a simultaneous announcement as to the results of the Conference. In the meantime I am not in a position to make any statement.

AIR SERVICE.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for India why, in view of the fact that a foreign company has been operating a regular weekly air-service each way across India for the last six months, no steps have been taken to utilise this service in conjunction with Imperial Airways for air mail from this country to various parts of India beyond Karachi and to Burma, pending the establishment of an Indian State service and the further extension of the Imperial air route to Rangoon?

Sir S. HOARE: The alternative suggested has for some time been under the consideration of the Government of India along with other possible means of accelerating the air mail to and from places on the trans-India air route. I am not at present in a position to make any statement in regard to the means which will ultimately be adopted to this end.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: Will His Majesty's Government approach the Indian Government with a view to reestablishing the Indian sector of the air route which was suspended last year owing to the financial crisis?

Sir S. HOARE: Negotiations have been in progress for a long time. I should like to see this route started.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (CENSORSHIP).

Mr. McENTEE: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether there is any censor of moving pictures in India; and whether steps will be taken to prohibit
the exhibition of disrobing films and other films likely to bring into disrespect the white women resident in India?

Sir S. HOARE: Yes, Sir. Censorship of films is carried out by the local authorities. As regards the second part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, West (Lieut.-Colonel J. Sandeman Allen) on the 15th February.

Sir A. KNOX: Is it not a fact that this censorship is most inefficient in India?

Sir S. HOARE: I do not admit that. I have no information to make me think that that is so.

FRANCHISE COMMITTEE.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is satisfied that the franchise committee, at present in India, is receiving the fullest possible measure of co-operation in the prosecution of its inquiries from all the various interests concerned?

Sir S. HOARE: I am satisfied that the committee is receiving a full measure of co-operation apart, of course, from the regrettable absence of the Congress.

KASHMIR.

Mr. HICKS: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he will state the present position in respect to the recent disturbed condition in Kashmir?

Sir S. HOARE: I have nothing to add to the statement which I circulated in reply to the hon. Member's question of the 7th March.

Oral Answers to Questions — EASTERN GALICIA.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in view of the fact that the establishment of an autonomous regime in Eastern Galicia was one of the conditions laid down by the Conference of Ambassadors on 15th March, 1923, in determining that Eastern Galicia should be made a part of Poland, and that the law on the autonomy of Eastern Galicia, passed by the Polish Sejm on 26th September, 1922, has riot yet been put into operation, His
Majesty's Government has made, or contemplates making, any representations to the Polish Government on the necessity that it should carry out this obligation?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): I must repeat what was stated by the then Foreign Secretary, Mr. Henderson, on the 29th of April, 1931, that it must not be assumed that the accuracy of the statement contained in the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is necessarily admitted. At the same time. His Majesty's Government, as a party to the decision of the Conference of Ambassadors, naturally continue to be interested in the regime established in Eastern Galicia. I do not, however, consider that in existing circumstances formal representations to the effect suggested are called for.

Mr. DAVIES: May we take it that this matter is going forward towards a solution on the lines that we desire, or is it at a deadlock?

Sir J. SIMON: No, the matter is receiving attention.

Oral Answers to Questions — HUNGARY (BRITISH INVESTORS).

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: 20 and 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) if he is now in a position to say why the German Government has permitted the detention by the Dresdner Bank, Berlin, of a remittance by the city of Budapest in transit to England for the service of the city of Budapest's obligations to British subjects; and whether he has made representations to the German Government with a view to the release of the funds for transmission to the British authorities;
(2) whether he has requested the Hungarian national and municipal authorities, when remitting sterling to London for the service of their obligations in Britain, to hand those funds to His Majesty's commercial secretary at Budapest for transmission to London in order that they may not be detained by other persons en route?

Sir J. SIMON: His Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin is inquiring urgently into the circumstances in which these funds
have been detained, and I have requested His Excellency at the same time to take any action likely to secure their early release. It is, unfortunately, not possible to make any further statement on the subject until a full report on the situation is available. The suggestion that His Majesty's Legation at Budapest should undertake the transmission of these funds is precluded by the terms governing the service of the loan.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if action of this kind on the part of the German Government is condoned it is utterly impossible for any British manufacturer to dare to send goods to Central Europe?

Sir J. SIMON: I am not suggesting any condonation. I am saying that inquiries are being made and vigorous action taken.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we can do no business while this mattter is unsettled?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRAZIL (BRITISH INVESTORS).

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will ascertain whether the Brazilian Government has given any undertaking that the currency to be deposited to cover the default on its obligations to British investors shall not be used for the reduction of Federal or State budget deficits; and, if not, will the British Commercial Secretary in Brazil be associated as trustee in Brazil of the currency deposited for unorganised British investors?

Sir J. SIMON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the terms of the agreement relating to the Third Funding Loan, which appeared in the Press this morning, by which the Brazilian Government undertook to deposit in local banks the sum necessary to cover the default on its obligations. In these circumstances I do not consider that any useful purpose would be served by making representations in the sense suggested. The second part of the question does not therefore arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS (PRISONERS, POLAND).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
what action was proposed by His Majesty's representative on the League of Nations Council in January with regard to the allegations of ill-treatment in Polish prisons; and whether any action has been taken in accordance therewith?

Sir J. SIMON: I would refer the hon. Member to the minutes of the meeting of the League of Nations Council on the 30th of January, which have now been placed in the Library of the House, as promised in reply to his question on the 25th of February, and which record both Lord Cecil's remarks on this subject and the decision of the Council on the petitions then before them.

Oral Answers to Questions — MANCHURIA.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the recent installation of a President of the Republic of Manchuria, he can now say what action is to be taken by His Majesty's Government with regard to the recognition of this State?

Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir. Our present information would make it premature to take any such action.

Mr. LOYAT-FRASER: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is very desirable to encourage this beginning of order against chaos and anarchy in China?

Sir J. SIMON: I must not make a premature statement of any sort.

Earl WINTERTON: In view of the important trade connection that we have with this country, will my right hon. Friend, when the Debate arises next week on this and kindred matters, be in a position to tell the House what steps he proposes to take to safeguard that trade if he is not prepared to recognise the only Government that is in existence?

Sir J. SIMON: I did not say anything about not being prepared to recognise it, but that on present information it would be premature to take that action.

Mr. LANSBURY: Has not the League of Nations sent out a commission to investigate whether this Government is to be recognised?

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Are the views of His Majesty's Government in accord with those of the Government of the United States with a view to development in that part of the world?

Sir J. SIMON: If the hon. Gentleman observes what appears in the Press today, he will be gratified to know that we and the United States Government are in very close accord.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA.

Lieut.-Commander BOWER: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has received any communication from the Italian Government concerning the decision of His Majesty's Government as to language reform in Malta?

Sir J. SIMON: No official communication has been received from the Italian Government on the subject referred to by the hon. and gallant Member.

Lieut.-Commander BOWER: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has received any communication from the Vatican concerning the report of the Royal Commission on Malta?

Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. CHORLTON: 28.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether any changes or reductions in War pensions have been made to account for the marked fall in the Estimates of his Department?

Mr. LEES-JONES: 29.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he will give the reasons for the large reduction in the Ministry of Pensions Estimates?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): No reductions have been made in War pensions rates. Nor has any alteration been made in the principles of administration. Apart from administrative economies which do not affect the pensioner the reductions shown in the Estimates for the coming year arise from an over-estimate of the Ministry's expenditure in the current year, and from normal causes such as death, the remarriage of widows, and children outgrowing the pensionable age. Incidentally, also, there is one less pay-day for
men during the coming financial year owing to an accident of the calendar, which in itself accounts for a reduction of about £400,000.

Mr. CHORLTON: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman take steps to see that all concerned in that locality are advised of this statement, because there is considerable disturbance there following the publication of statements in a journal?

Major TRYON: I would ask the hon. Gentleman to let me know to which particular matter he is referring and which locality.

Mr. LEES-JONES: Is there any truth in the statement which has been made recently that the economy "axe" has fallen on 2,000 War widows?

Major TRYON: No, Sir, that figure is simply the estimate of the diminution in the pension list which may be expected in the course of the next 12 months based on the remarriage or death of widows.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR.

Mr. McENTEE: 30.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he can give the House any information as to the results of the British Industries Fair in London and Birmingham; the number of visitors to each section; and the approximate volume of orders placed, together with figures of particular industries represented?

Mr. JOHN COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I am glad to be able to state that the results have been uniformly satisfactory. In many sections business is reported to have been secured on a scale much in excess of that at any previous fair. The attendances by trade visitors to the London section were as follow:

Overseas buyers
10,066


Home buyers
278,828

Of these no less than 3.639 overseas buyers and 104,549 home buyers visited the new textile section.

The total attendance of the general public in London was 39,442, of whom 5,691 visited the White City. The total attendance at the Birmingham section was 144,389.

As regards the last part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to die reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Crossley) on the 10th March.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 31.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he can state the number of foreign waiters who were engaged to participate in the restaurants connected with the recent British Industries Fairs at the White City, Olympia, and Birmingham, respectively; and whether he will consider the advisability of making it a condition for future catering contracts for these fairs that all the waiters shall be British?

Mr. COLVILLE: I am informed that so far as the London section of the British Industries Fair is concerned, no foreign waiters were employed in the restaurants at the White City nor at Olympia, though two foreigners were acting at Olympia in a supervisory capacity in the two principal restaurants. In regard to the Birmingham section, I am informed that no foreign waiters were engaged. In answer to the second part of the question, it is the policy of the Department of Overseas Trade in entering into any contract to emphasise the necessity for the largest possible proportion of employment of British material and personnel. In so far as catering arrangements come under the control of the Department, this policy is carried out.

IMPORT DUTIES (MANDATED TERRITORIES).

Mr. DAVID ADAMS: 55.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether His Majesty's Government intends to issue an Order in Council declaring that the mandated area of Palestine shall profit from the preferential treatment accorded to the British Empire in the Import Duties Act?

Mr. COLVILLE: This question is still under consideration.

TARMAC (IMPORTS).

Mr. THORNE: 56.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the number of barrels of tarmac imported into Great Britain for the years ending 1930, 1931, and to the nearest available date for the current year?

Mr. COLVILLE: I regret that particulars of such imports are not available as
they are not separately recorded in the trade returns of the United Kingdom.

GERMANY (BRITISH COAL QUOTA).

Mr. LAWSON: (by Private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now able to make a statement on the reply of the German Government on the restriction of British coal imports to Germany; whether such restrictions are a violation of Treaty Rights; and in view of the reply of the British Mining Association on this question, which he has also received, what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I have now received the reply of the German Government to most of the questions put to them with regard to the restriction on British coal imports. This reply, in my opinion, made it clear that the action taken by Germany is inconsistent with her obligations under the Anglo-German Commercial Treaty of 1924, being discriminatory against this country. Instructions were accordingly given to the British Ambassador to make the strongest representations to the German Government and this he did on Friday. I am advised that the German Government are considering these representations at once, and I propose to await their reply before forming a view as to what further action may be necessary.

Mr. LAWSON: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his answer, may I ask if he is aware that collieries have already been closed down in Durham as a result of this policy and can he expedite the matter in order to get some satisfactory solution?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am glad to say that the German Government have taken the matter into consideration without any delay, and we hope to have their reply very shortly.

Mr. THORNE: While these negotiations are going on will the embargo still be on the coal?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: There is no doubt about that.

Mr. BATEY: Is it the case that the German Government have taken the action which they have taken because of the tariff policy of His Majesty's Government?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

BEET-SUGAR INDUSTRY.

Mr. GROVES: 32.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what approximate percentage of the capital of the beet-sugar factories established under the British Beet Sugar Subsidy Act is held by foreign interests; and what is the aggregate sum paid out in dividends to this section of beet-sugar factory shareholders since the inception of the subsidy scheme?

Commander MARSDEN: 33.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what is the total capitalisation of all the beet-sugar factories in Great Britain; what percentage of this capital is estimated to be held by foreigners; and whether he has any figures to show the amount that has been paid out in dividends to such foreign shareholders since the inception of the subsidy scheme?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour): The total capitalisation of British beet-sugar factories is £7,243,468 of which I understand about 20 per cent. is held by other than British nationals. The dividends paid to foreign shareholders since the beginning of the subsidy period amount to about £950,000 net.

Mr. PURBRICK: 34.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what were the average manufacturing costs per ton for producing raw and white sugar, respectively, from sugar-beet during the last season for which figures are available; and how these compare with the manufacturing costs for producing sugar from cane in Cuba, Queensland, Natal, Mauritius, and Jamaica?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I regret that I am not in a position to supply my hon. Friend with the information desired.

SUGAR-BEET PRODUCTION.

Mr. MACPHERSON: 35.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the average costs of sugar-beet per acre and per ton in the years 1930 and 1931 in England and Wales, specifying in detail the costs of labour, manures, rent and rates, transport, and overhead charges, together with the average price at the factory obtained for sugar-beet, and the value of the residual crowns and leaves?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As the reply contains a tabular statement, I propose, with my right hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir BASIL PETO: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that any attempt to compare the cost of sugar-beet production with the value of the product at the factory is necessarily misleading if it does not take into account the value to the succeeding crops?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am aware of the importance to the succeeding crops.

Following is the reply:

The figures for which my right hon. Friend asks are not collected officially, but an arrangement has been made by which the Institute for Research in Agricultural Economics at Oxford compiles figures from representative farms in the country. The latest figures available relate to the 1930 crop before the last fall in the rate of subsidy, and are as follow:



Per Acre.
Per Ton.



£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


Labour
9
5
4

17
5


Manure and Seed
4
17
11

9
2


Rent and Rates
1
11
1

2
1


Overhead Expenses.
1
0
6

l
11


Transport
3
3
1

5
11



19
17
11
1
17
4


Gross Price Received.
26
6
11
2
9
6


Net addition for Residuals.
2
1
1

3
10

IMPORTED BACON.

Mr. J. P. L. THOMAS: 36.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the total imports of bacon from Poland and Lithuania, respectively, for each of the years 1929, 1930, and 1931?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Imports of bacon from Poland into the United Kingdom for the years in question were 305,453 cwt., 483,295 cwt., and 1,076,610 cwt. respectively, while those from Lithuania were 5,366 cwt., 73,333 cwt., and 362,381 cwt.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Seeing the enormous quantity of bacon which is imported from these countries, does not the right hon. Gentleman think
the time has arrived when something ought to be done to assist the bacon industry in this country?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, Sir, and I hope very shortly to deal with that problem.

Sir F. HALL: When will "very shortly" be? Can the right hon. Gentleman give me any idea?

Mr. THOMAS: 37.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the wholesale price at which bacon imported from Denmark, Poland, and Lithuania is sold in this country; whether the Governments of any of these three countries pay subsidies to the exporters of bacon; and, if so, what is the amount of these subsidies?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The wholesale price of 1st quality Danish green bacon last month was about 54s. per cwt., the price of Polish and Lithuanian being about 8s. to 10s. per cwt. lower. As regards the question of the payment of subsidies by the Governments of these three countries to bacon exporters the latest information in my possession is as follows:
No subsidy is paid by the Dansh Government. In the case of Lithuania the Government at one time had an agreement with the "Maistas" Company to bear up to 75 per cent. of any losses incurred by the company on the export of bacon and pork, but I have no information as to whether this arrangement has since been varied. The Polish Government pays no subsidy but exporters of bacon receive a certificate at the rate of 25 Zloty per 100 kilograms (about 8s. per cwt. at the current rate of exchange) of the product exported, to be used in payment of import duties.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Although those Governments do not give a direct subsidy, do not they contribute to the transport charges, by way of hiding the subsidy which they actually give?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I should require notice of that question.

MILK INDUSTRY (REORGANISATION).

Captain ELLISTON: 39.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the connection of the milk supply with various aspects of health and the prevention of disease, representation
will be given to the public health interests on the commission for the reorganisation of the milk industry?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I regret I cannot undertake to give representation on the Commission to any particular interest, but I will, however, bear my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion in mind.

BACON INDUSTRY (REORGANISATION).

Mr. GRIMSTON: 41.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is in a position to make any announcement with regard to the progress of a scheme for the organisation of the bacon industry?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I hope to be able to make an announcement on the subject very shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE (DELIVERIES, LONDON).

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 42.
asked the Postmaster-General whether there is guaranteed delivery by the first post in the Metropolitan area of letters posted in London where there are collections as late as 11 p.m. and 12 p.m. at night; whether he is aware that in many cases letters posted within a radius of three miles of Charing Cross and addressed to a delivery point equally within three miles of Charing Cross are not so delivered; and whether he will consider the general improvement of the postal methods in this respect?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): Letters for addresses in the London Postal Area collected at 11.0 p.m. or midnight should normally be delivered by the first post on the following day. If my hon. and gallant Friend will furnish me with particulars of cases where there has been delay I will have inquiry made.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Could there be any delay with anything which is posted at 12 p.m. at night?

Oral Answers to Questions — RICHMOND PARK (EQUESTRIANS).

Lieut.-Commander BOWER: 43.
asked the First Commissioner of Works if he will state what restrictions are imposed upon riders in Richmond Park; and whether it is intended to increase these restrictions?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The restrictions are included in the Statutory Regulations made for the park, copies of which are prominently displayed at all the gates. Owing to the grave disfigurement of the park caused by the destruction of the turf by the increasing number of riders, the question of imposing additional restrictions is now under serious consideration. Owing to excessive damage steps have already been taken to close certain grass tracks to riders.

Lieut.-Commander BOWER: Having regard to the fact that equestrians have been actually driven off the roads, will the right hon Gentleman give an assurance that no restrictions which are not absolutely necessary will be imposed?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Certainly; it never was intended to impose restrictions other than in the interests of the riders themselves.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS (REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT).

Mr. DENVILLE: 51.
asked the hon. Member for Monmouth, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, if the butter, cheese, and eggs used in the House of Commons are of British or Irish origin?

Sir JOHN GANZONI: In the regrettable absence of the hon. Member for Monmouth (Sir L. Forestier-Walker), owing to illness, I have been asked to act. All butter and eggs used in the refreshment department of this House are guaranteed to be of British origin, the cheese, with the exception of a few items which are shown on the menu card, is also all British.

Oral Answers to Questions — CANE SUGAR INDUSTRY.

Mr. GROVES: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether the research work to be undertaken in sugar-producing territories of the Empire with the assistance of grants from the British Government will include investigations into the possibility, and relative costs, of making the Empire self-supporting in sugar produced from cane as opposed to that produced from sugar beet?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): No, Sir. In each territory
the investigations supported by grants from the Empire Marketing Fund will be directed in the first place towards improving the efficiency of the local sugar industry, and in the second place towards progress in scientific knowledge and technique which will be of interest to all parts of the Empire in which sugar is produced.

Captain P. MACDONALD: Would it not be to the advantage of some of those colonies if some means were available to them for the sale of their sugar after they have produced it?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

INSURANCE FUND.

Sir A. KNOX: 53.
asked the Minister of Labour what is at present the total weekly income of the Unemployment Insurance Fund, giving separately the receipts from the State, from employers, and from employés; and what is the total weekly expenditure on statutory benefit and in transitional payments?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): The present average weekly contribution income of the Insurance Account of the Unemployment Fund is about £1,040,000, the Exchequer, employers and workpeople each contributing one-third. The expenditure out of the Fund, otherwise than in respect of transitional payments, averages at present about £1,235,000 a week, of which £1,150,000 is insurance benefit and £85,000 administrative expenses. In addition, interest on debt is accruing at the rate of about £100,000 a week. Transitional payments and their administration during the four weeks ended 5th March, 1932, have averaged approximately £835,000 per week, which is repaid to the Fund by the Exchequer.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: 52.
asked the Minister of Labour what is the approximate cost per annum at present of every 100,000 persons on the live register?

Mr. HUDSON: The outgoings of the Unemployment Fund by way of insurance benefit, transitional payments, adminis-
tration and interest, are at present approximately £4,150,000 for every 100,000 persons on the live register.

MINERS.

Mr. DAGGAR: 54.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed miners in Great Britain and South Wales, respectively, for each month from February, 1931, to February, 1932?

Mr. HUDSON: As the reply includes a table of figures I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

The following Table shows the numbers of insured persons in the Coalmining classification recorded as unemployed in each month since February, 1931, in Great Britain and in Wales and Monmouthshire:


Date.
Great Britain.
Wales and Monmouthshire.


1931.




23rd February
…
240,300
67,156


23rd March
…
293,158
64,593


27th April
…
279,295
65,011


18th May
…
289,251
83,802


22nd June
…
378,633
79,451


27th July
…
389,124
78,846


24th August
…
330,091
75,509


21st September
…
317,759
76,127


26th October
…
303,979
76,917


23rd November
…
283,954
77,495


21st December
…
257,190
64,411


1932.




25th January
…
289,499
84,086


22nd February
…
294,690
84,692

NOTE.—Separate figures for South Wales are not available except by special extraction.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

Mr. D. ADAMS: 58.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any steps have now been taken to give effect to the statement made in the Prime Minister's letter to Dr. Weizmann, on 13th February, 1931, that it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to institute an inquiry as soon as possible to ascertain what State and other lands in Palestine are, or can properly be made, available for close settlement by Jews?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Robert Hamilton): I hope that it will be possible to
institute the inquiry at an early date, but at the present stage I am not in a position to make any fuller statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — POUND STERLING (EXCHANGE VALUE).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 63.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has observed the rise in the value of the pound and the effect such rise must have, not only on the export trade, but also on his proposal to meet the loss on the repayment of the French and American credits out of the increased value in sterling of our gold reserves; and what steps he proposes to take to reduce the value of the pound?

Mr. ALEXANDER RAMSAY: 64.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to a recent increase in the international exchange value of the pound sterling; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure that the pound sterling shall not rise to its pre-War gold parity or to such level as would be a disadvantage to the exporting trades of this country?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): I would refer to my right hon. Friend's remarks in the Debate on Friday, to which I have nothing to add at the present time.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech on Friday he did not indicate in the least how he was intending to reduce the value of the pound?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ACCIDENTS.

Mr. PARKINSON: 60.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will inform the House as to the number of serious accidents caused, and reported to his Department, by private cars, commercial lorries, and other commercial vehicles, respectively, during the last 10 years, in each case stating the number of fatal accidents in each year?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir Herbert Samuel): I will circulate such figures as are available in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:


The particulars collected do not provide for a separation of accidents caused by commercial lorries from those caused by other commercial vehicles. The available figures are as follow:


—
Fatal Accidents.


1927.
1928.
1929.
1930.
1931.


Private cars (including for 1927 and 1928, taxi-cabs, which are responsible for rather less than 100 of these accidents annually).
1,477
1,814
1,811
1,824
1,811*


Motor vans, lorries, etc.
1,086
1,136
1,330
1,475
1,399*



2,563
2,950
3,141
3,299
3,210*



Non-fatal Accidents involving personal injury.


Private cars (including for 1927 and 1928, taxi-cabs, which are responsible for rather less than 2,500 of these accidents annually).
41,716
47,394
46,085
47,338
58,308*


Motor vans, lorries, etc.
14,292
15,832
17,554
18,907
23,012*



56,008
63,226
63,639
66,245
81,320*


* Provisional.

Mr. SOMERVELL: 61.
asked the Home Secretary how many persons have been killed in railway accidents and road accidents, respectively, in the last five years?

The numbers of persons killed in Great Britain in railway and road accidents respectively during the years since 1926 were as follow:


—
1926.
1927.
1928.
1929.
1930.
Total.


Railway
…
…
…
374
435
460
417
380
2,066


Road
…
…
…
4,886
5,329
6,138
6,696
7,305
30,354


For 1931 the figures of railway accidents are not yet available; the number of road accidents was 6,690.

ROAD AND RAIL TRANSPORT CONFERENCE.

Mr. HUTCHISON: 65.
asked the Minister of Transport if he can now state the composition of the conference which he proposes to call of railway and road transport representatives, the lines upon which this body is to operate, and the extent of the powers it will possess; and whether it will be convoked at once in view of the importance of the issues raised?

Sir H. SAMUEL: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus): In accordance with the announcement which I made last week, I propose to summon before Easter a small conference of organisations directly concerned in the operation of goods transport by road and rail respectively.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the hon. Gentleman see that members of the public are represented seeing that this is a question of the transport of the
public, not only by railways? They are the right people to decide these questions.

Mr. HANNON: Will the hon. Member give an opportunity to those representing the canal interests to be present at this conference?

Mr. PYBUS: All interests will have an opportunity of presenting their views before I take any decision.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

Mr. LANSBURY: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, now that he has returned from Geneva, he can give the House any information as to the latest stages of the treatment of the Sino-Japanese dispute by the special Assembly of the League?

Sir J. SIMON: As the House is aware, the representative of China on the Council of the League of Nations on the 12th February exercised the right conferred by Article 15 of the Covenant of the League to transfer the dispute which he had submitted under that Article from the Council to the Assembly. A special Assembly of the League met on the 3rd March to consider the question. On the 4th March the Assembly adopted unanimously a preliminary resolution dealing with certain aspects of the matter, the substance of which was given to the House in the answer of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on the 10th March. The special Assembly next undertook a more elaborate examination of the matter from the point of view of the principles involved. The discussion, which took place in a general commission of the Assembly in which all States present were represented, extended over several days, and, after a large number of States present had put forward their views, it was decided to endeavour to embody the result in a comprehensive Resolution. The draft of this Resolution was prepared by the Drafting Committee, composed of a number of both large and small States, under the Presidency of M. Hymans, the Foreign Minister of Belgium, who had also been chosen as President of the special Assembly, and to whose skilful and authoritative chairmanship I wish to
pay my tribute. As a result, on Friday evening last, the draft Resolution was put before the Assembly, and I am very happy to be able to report to the House that it was adopted without dissent. All the delegations present voted in favour if it, save the parties to the dispute, both of whom abstained from voting. As, under the Constitution of the Assembly, abstention counts as absence, the result is that the Resolution has the full effect of unanimity. I propose to circulate as a White Paper this Resolution, as well as the Resolution of the 4th March. The House will observe that the Resolution referred, not only to the obligations involved in the Covenant of the League of Nations, but also to the Pact of Paris, and the Government of the United States has since communicated officially to the Secretary-General of the League indicating its satisfaction and approval. The Assembly remains constitutionally in session, and is likely to have a further meeting not later than the 1st May. But what I have reported to the House constitutes the completion of the first stage of the Assembly's work, and I think we have ground for satisfaction in the unanimity of the conclusions which have been reached.

Mr. LANSBURY: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, I would like to ask him whether it will be possible for him, either on Wednesday or on Thursday, to give the House any further information as to the steps that have been taken at Shanghai itself to carry out the proposals contained in the recommendations of the League?

Sir J. SIMON: Yes, Sir; I will give an answer on that point as soon as possible, I think that later in the week would be better, because I have not at the moment any very exact information on the subject.

Mr. LANSBURY: Some of us may desire to discuss this matter before Easter, and it is only in order that we may have the very latest information that I now give the right hon. Gentleman notice that I will put another question to him on Thursday.

Earl WINTERTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman include in the White Paper an account, by British representatives on the spot, of the exact military position at
Shanghai; that is to say, the extent to which the Chinese have been driven back, and the extent to which the Japanese are satisfied with the situation?

Sir J. SIMON: I will consider my Noble Friend's suggestion, though I do not think it would be very easy to include in a White Paper particulars of that sort, some of which, of course, are of an extremely technical kind.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will it include the message we have had from the Government of the United States?

Sir J. SIMON: Yes.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the Prime Minister tell us what are the Government's intentions with regard to business to-night? Why do they want the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule?

The PRIME MINISTER: The proposal to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule is purely precautionary. There are certain bits of business that we must have to-

day. We must have the Third Reading of the Financial Emergency Enactments (Continuance) Bill, and also the Committee stage of the Money Resolution for the Tanganyika and British Honduras Loans. If there is time before Half-past Seven, or in the event of the Debate on the Second Reading of the Private Bill being disposed of before Eleven o'Clock, the Government will proceed with the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, Committee; the Dangerous Drugs Bill, Second Reading; the Report stage of the Money Resolution for the Destructive Imported Animals Bill; and the Committee stage of that Bill. These Measures have passed their preceding stages with practically no discussion, and we think it reasonable to ask for the stages on the Paper tonight, but it is not intended to have an inordinately late sitting.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 224; Noes, 25.

Division No. 103.]
AYES.
[3.26 p.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Albery, Irving James
Cross, R. H.
Hales, Harold K.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nhd.)
Crossley, A. C.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Ztl'nd)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hanley, Dennis A.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Denville, Alfred
Harris, Sir Percy


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Hartland, George A.


Bernays, Robert
Dickie, John P.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Donner, P. W.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Doran, Edward
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Bossom, A. C.
Drewe, Cedric
Hillman, Dr. George B.


Boulton, W. W.
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Duggan, Hubert John
Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Eden, Robert Anthony
Hornby, Frank


Broadbent, Colonel John
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Hurd, Percy A.


Burnett, John George
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Fermoy, Lord
Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Ganzoni, Sir John
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)


Chotzner, Alfred James
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)


Clarke, Frank
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Ker, J. Campbell


Clarry, Reginald George
Goff, Sir Park
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.


Colville, John
Goldie, Noel B.
Knight, Holford


Conant, R. J. E.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Cooke, Douglas
Gower, Sir Robert
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Cooper, A. Duff
Granville, Edgar
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Craven-Ellis, William
Grimston, R. V.
Lees-Jones, John


Crooke, J. Smedley
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Levy, Thomas
Peto, Sir Basil E.(Devon, Barnstaple)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Pike, Cecil F.
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)
Purbrick, R.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Pybus, Percy John
Stones, James


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Strauss, Edward A.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


McKie, John Hamilton
Rea, Walter Russell
Tate, Mavis Constance


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


McLean, Major Alan
Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Rosbotham, S. T.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Ross, Ronald D.
Thompson, Luke


Maitland, Adam
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M
Runge, Norah Cecil
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Marjoribanks, Edward
Salt, Edward W.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Millar, Sir James Duncan
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Weymouth, Viscount


Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Savery, Samuel Servington
White, Henry Graham


Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw
Scone, Lord
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Muirhead, Major A. J.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Munro, Patrick
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Womersley, Walter James


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


North, Captain Edward T.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Nunn, William
Smithers, Waldron
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Somerset, Thomas



Patrick, Colin M.
Somervell, Donald Bradley
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Peake, Captain Osbert
Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)
Sir George Penny and Sir Victor


Peat, Charles U.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Warrender.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Hirst, George Henry
Thorne, William James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Batey, Joseph
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lawson, John James
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Daggar, George
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William



Edwards, Charles
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Parkinson, John Allen
Mr. Groves and Mr. Gordon


Grundy, Thomas W.
Price, Gabriel
Macdonald.


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Salter, Dr. Alfred



Bill read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, and to be printed. [Bill 42.]

Orders of the Day — FINANCIAL EMERGENCY ENACTMENTS (CONTINUANCE) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Clause 1 (Continuance of s. 1 (3) of 21 & 22 Geo. 5. c. 46, and of 21 & 22 Geo. 5. c. 51) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Short title.)

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: May I ask whether it is the purpose that the Act shall be continued beyond the period cited in this Clause?

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I put one or two questions to the hon. Gentleman on Friday to which he said he would give me an answer to-day. I asked him, first, if he would tell us what machinery the Board of Trade possesses to see that there is no exploitation of the necessities of life. He remarked during his short speech that complaints had already been received at the Board of Trade in respect of some exploitation. I do not know whether he will be able to give us information on that score. The point that weighed with me most was this. Will he bear in mind that it is not sufficient to say that the consumer is not being exploited merely because the cost of living remains the same. I tried to put to him that, if the cost of commodities declined by 20 per cent. and the cost of living remained the same, in my view that would be some evidence that the consumer was not getting the advantage of the reduction in the price of commodities. An hon. Member below the Gangway put a very good case forward when he said that the price of wheat had declined enormously, but that the price of bread remained the same. The attitude of the Board of Trade up to now has been that, so long as the cost of living remained at 45 per cent. above pre-War rates, all is well. I want to put it to the Government that, if the cost of commodities declines and the cost of living remains the same, that is a case
for inquiry by them as to whether the consumer is being exploited. Last of all, I want to make a point on this issue. It is apparent to me, from what the hon. Gentleman said on Friday, that the Board of Trade inquires from the wholesaler as to the price he pays and the price he charges the retailer. I want the Board of Trade to go a step further and make inquiries whether the consumer is exploited by the retailer.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not want to deprive the Committee of the advantage of getting an answer to one or two questions of that kind if the Minister is prepared to give it, but strictly it is entirely out of order on Clause 2. If the Minister chooses to answer, well and good, but any discussion on the subject must be reserved until we come to the Third Reading.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. HoreBelisha): I am perfectly ready to reply to the questions that have been asked, as I should not like the hon. Gentleman to feel that we have any matter to conceal. First of all, however, I will answer my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). It is not intended to keep these powers in operation longer than the period for which the Bill authorises them. Therefore, if it should be desired to extend them for a period longer than one year, of course, Parliament will have to be consulted. As to the points raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite, the Board of Trade has at its disposal the services of a retailers' informal committee, consisting of all branches pf trading, including cooperative societies. No changes of price have been made without the Board of Trade being informed, and I dare say the retail trades have worked in complete co-operation with the Board of Trade. There have been one or two individual complaints, but in all cases the wrongs alleged have been rectified immediately, and I think. if I remind the hon. Gentleman of certain figures, he will see that there has been very little necessity for us to put our powers into effect. The wholesale prices of food have risen from 111.8 in February, 1931, to 114.2 in February, 1932. In the same period the price of retail food has fallen from 36 to 31. Therefore, the gap between wholesale and retail
prices has been contracted. Consequently, there has been no call on us to threaten traders.
The next point—one which he raised on Friday—was one of detail. He said that I had mentioned some commodities but not others, and the one which he instanced was Danish butter. I had told the House that New Zealand butter had fallen in price, but I had omitted to mention Danish butter. Danish butter is being reduced as from to-day by one penny per pound. I hope that that will satisfy my hon. Friend. There was one point about bread which he desired me to mention. He asked why, when the price of wheat had fallen from between 10 to 30 per cent. the price of bread had not fallen also? Of course, the price of bread is regulated by the Food Council scale—the scale which has been approved by every Government since it was initiated in the year 1925. It is true that the price of wheat has fallen, but other costs have risen considerably. Port costs have risen by no less than 120 per cent., and wages have risen in a noticeable way. Naturally, these factors have to be taken into account. I think that on the whole it may be said that the consumer has been very well used throughout this crisis and has obtained the benefit of very low prices in circumstances which nobody could have anticipated at the time that we went off the Gold Standard.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: The Government, I think, may well congratulate themselves upon having secured the passage of this Bill in the stages through which it has passed so far with so little discussion. I do not think that there is any opposition to it in any part of the House and there has certainly been little discussion upon a Bill which is of such momentous importance. I had only one quarrel with the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Friday last, and that was when he expressed some measure of surprise that the House should have taken so much interest in the Bill or consider it a matter
of such importance. I am bound to say that that attitude surprised me considerably the more so, as only that morning there appeared in the "Times" newspaper a letter from no less an authority than Lord Bradbury stating that in fact the changes in the value of sterling in the past few days had been sufficient to offset at once the whole effect of the 10 per cent. tariff under the Import Duties Act which this House required of necessity a great deal of time to discuss and to pass into law. Further than that, I cannot understand the attitude which considers this Bill of little moment. To my mind, it may be the most important measure from the point of view of trade and industry which the Government have brought before the House. I say this with some reason.
I want, in the first place, to remind the House of the reasons for, and the authority under which we originally discussed this matter six months ago. At that time the then Chancellor of the Exchequer made a very definite promise to the House of Commons. It will be found in the Debate which took place on Monday, 21st September, in which he said that the Government would take such measures as may be necessary to circumscribe the fluctuations of the exchange. I would point out to the House that this definite promise which was given to it upon the bringing forward of the Bill was that the Government would take definite steps to avoid undue variations in the value of sterling. I think, therefore, the House is entitled to ask what measures the Government intend to take to bring about that very desirable result. I do not suggest for a moment that it is within the power of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or even within the power of the Bank of England to fix the Exchange at an exact figure at this time, nor do I think it would be a desirable thing to endeavour to do at this stage. But that is rather a different matter from the position we are left in by the answer which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave us on Friday. He then indicated that he himself and the Government would regret any rise in the pound which would react adversely upon trade, but he did not in any way indicate what measures the Government were to take to stop any possible speculation or the operation of other causes such as the continuance of an unreal
Bank Rate—which might mean a sudden jump in the value of the pound. I do not think that the influence of speculation or an influx of short term money upon the changes in the value of sterling will be disputed by those who have studied the question. While as I have said it is probably very undesirable for any person at this time to forecast what will happen in the future as to the value of the pound —and it is undesirable probably to attempt any measures to deal with that long-term question at this moment—still it is quite within the power of the Government to prevent undue fluctuations in the immediate future.
I have not often in the House of Commons quoted Lord Bradbury as supporting any views that I might humbly hold but I again would remind the House that Lord Bradbury himself in the same letter that I have already quoted refers to the perfect mastery of the problem which the Government and the Bank can exercise at the present time. When we bear in mind the immense hardship which falls upon trade and industry of all kinds by these fluctuations in the exchange, I think we are entitled to ask the Government to say a little more definitely than they have done so far what they intend to do in the near future if we should be menaced by foreign or other speculators endeavouring to force up the value of the pound unduly. While I realise very freely the difficulties of laying down any long-term policy, as I have already said, and deprecate it being attempted now, at the same time I would ask whether we are not really entitled to consider whether the record of the Bank of England in the past is such that we can really trust entirely to the views and opinions of those in control of that great institution to deal with the future. It is impossible for anyone outside that magic circle to know exactly what is going on, and it may well be that it is not entirely desirable that we should know all that goes on. But I am beginning to wonder whether the only real justification for there being a magic circle at all is not that the operations of that circle should function for the benefit of industry and whether in fact that has been the case in the past. The actual situation is that in the past few weeks the attitude of the Bank of England has been absolutely impossible for any outsider to understand.
It appears to have been purchasing dollars and francs, no doubt for the purpose of part liquidation of our debts abroad, and suddenly without notice to have ceased those purchases when it should have known, and must have been known that a sudden change in operations of that kind would result immediately in fluctuations of a violent character in the gold value of the pound.
It seems to me, therefore, looking at recent events, that we are entitled to say that a consideration of the past gives us no guarantee that the operations of the future will be carried out entirely for the benefit of British industry. If we go back to past history in this matter I think it will be agreed that there is no particular reason from our examination for us to have confidence. In this House, in connection with previous Bills, the report of the Cunliffe Committee has been referred to again and again. That committee, presided over by a very eminent gentleman, and composed almost entirely of bankers, made a report which, however valuable it may have been for the purpose of bringing back London to its position as a great financial centre, certainly did not tend to benefit British industry. Following upon that report we had during a long number of years a large number of very optimistic statements from various eminent gentlemen regarding an immediate revival of trade, all of which have proved hopelessly wrong.
Further, we had the operations of last year which, so far as any outsider could tell, resulted in our rushing about the world seeking to secure credits which were quite ineffective when we had secured them. We were told in some cases that as the result of those operations, and of the wonderful recuperative power of the British trade, a revival of industry would result and bring about rapid prosperity. None of these things happened. Those prophecies have all proved wrong. In the same way the international bankers have proved to be utterly wrong. The Young Plan followed the Dawes Plan. We are therefore entitled to say to those to whom we ought to look with confidence that, so far as any guidance they have given us during the past few years is concerned, they have proved utterly false prophets. In this connection, and again turning to a source which I would not usually be found
quoting as supporting my arguments, I cannot help being reminded that the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), speaking in this House and addressing the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, urged him not to be too afraid of the bankers. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that since the War the City of London has invariably been wrong in advising the Government, and that the bankers have been wrong every time.

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot see that this argument has anything to do with this Bill. The hon. Member must recollect that, although such argument may have been in order on the Second Reading, when we get to the Third Reading he cannot go outside the Bill itself.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I, of course, bow to your Ruling, but may I, with respect, point out that this Bill is continuing powers which the Government have taken for the express purpose of curtailing the fluctuation of the exchange. The whole object of my argument is to show the necessity for the Government using those powers and to ask the Government what they intend to do in that connection. I will not, however, pursue the past history of the question, in view of your Ruling. I would ask the Government to tell us whether, if we pass the Third Reading of the Bill and they receive the powers for which they ask and which I am anxious they should have, they intend to carry out what was clearly in the minds of those who introduced the original Bill of last September, and whether they intend to take measures to curtail within reasonable limits the fluctuations of the exchange. Further, as it is the Government's desire, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on Friday, not to see the pound increase in value to the detriment of trade, what measures they will take to bring about that very desirable result.
The operations of the Bill may or may not affect the long-term policy of the settlement of the value of sterling which, in view of your Ruling, I cannot raise to-day, but I do think that within the terms of the Bill we are entitled to know what the Goverment intend to do during this year, seeing that they will have these powers. I ask that they should make it clear that they are satisfied that the
powers are sufficient and that they will take steps to prevent undue fluctuations which would tend to make trade impossible in this country and would have an effect upon our commerce far more serious than any action that might be taken by the financiers in any part of the world. Before the Bill receives the Third Reading the Government ought to give the trading and commercial community of this country the strongest assurance possible in these matters to enable them to go forward with renewed confidence in their business and to promote that revival in industry we believe to be in sight.

Mr. BOOTHBY: It is a source of great satisfaction that the House is now taking so great, and so increasing, an interest in the monetary policy pursued by this country, which it has neglected, to its own cost and the cost of the country, far too much during the past few years. There was one observation made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Second Reading of the Bill which caused me some apprehension, when he said that there were disadvantages in our having gone off the Gold Standard, and that one of those disadvantages was that we had not got the stability that we had when we were linked up to gold. I suggest that since we left the Gold Standard we have enjoyed far greater stability than at any time during the five or six years that we were on the Gold Standard —[HON. MEMBERS "No!"]—so far as prices are concerned, which is what really matters. We are now considering the future monetary policy of this country, which the Government are asking the House to grant them special powers to conduct.
In retrospect, I do not think that anyone would deny that the monetary policy that has been pursued by this country ever since 1921 has been, in effect, disastrous. Calamitous. It damaged our export trade to such an extent that we were not able to take advantage of the world boom, which other countries enjoyed, between the years 1924–1929. It led, in the opinion of some of us, almost directly to the industrial upheaval of 192g; it has almost trebled the real burden of our internal debt; and it has increased the burden of all the fixed interest charges, which press so hard upon the producing classes in
this country, in proportion. Sir Josiah Stamp, in a most interesting article, the other day, estimated that, as a result of the monetary policy we have pursued, about £200,000,000 every year inside this country is transferred from what he described as active to inactive hands. In other words, it is transferred from the producing to the rentier class. We ask, and we are entitled to ask, that the Government should give some indication that the policy of deflation is not going to be continued in this country now, or in the immediate future.
4.0 p.m.
The Macmillan Committee was quoted in the Debate the other day and it has been quoted again to-day. One of the things that the Macmillan Committee said, quite specifically, was that an era of "conscious and deliberate management" had now succeeded an era of natural evolution. We cannot allow complete free play in economic affairs in the modern world. Things have become too complicated. They are on too large a scale, and events move with far too great rapidity. I agree with what the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne) said, that if we are going to allow fluctuations to take place, such as occurred last week, in the exchange value of the pound sterling, the whole of this tariff business will have been a pure waste of time. A condition of the success of the tariff policy, which I want to see successful, is that, so far as our monetary policy is concerned, we shall keep the pound more or less stable in terms of commodities. Some of us have been very much surprised, to say the least, at the policy of the Bank of England in continuing this deflation during the past few weeks. Indeed, it was not until my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) made an impassioned plea in this House for the reduction of the Bank Rate, as a first step towards checking the continued policy of deflation, that the Bank of England took any action at all. What we would like to hear this afternoon is some more or less definite assurance with regard to monetary policy from the Government. We do not want a final statement. Nobody expects that the Government can say what the ultimate policy is to be; or, at what figure they anticipate that the pound will be finally stabilised. But I would remind the Financial Secretary to the Treasury
that during the last few months the sterling area has been continuously enlarged, and that we want to see it enlarged to the greatest possible extent. More and more countries have adopted the sterling standard. There are others who would do so if they knew what it involved, and what our policy was going to be.
We owe it, I think, not only to our industrialists and to ourselves, but to foreign countries, to make a much clearer statement as to what our intentions so far as monetary policy is concerned than we have done in the past. I would beg my hon. Friend at least to give us an assurance that, in so far as the Government are concerned in this matter, and in so far as it lies in their power, they will do everything to secure the stability of sterling in terms of commodities during the next few months, and to prevent a fluctuation in the exchange value of sterling such as occurred last week. I was speaking the other day to a prominent authority of the Bank of England, and I asked him what the object of the Bank of England was in continuing to pursue a deflationary policy. He replied, "We do not know what the policy of the Government is. We have received no instructions. For all we know, the policy of the British Government at the present time may be the restoration of the Gold Standard at the pre-War parity of exchange. We have been told nothing at the Bank of England." According to this gentleman, the Bank has been told nothing specific; and the country and the world have been told nothing specific with regard to the monetary intentions of the Government. Therefore I do hope that, in the interests of our trade and industry in particular, the Government will give some assurance that they do not intend to allow the pound sterling to be forced up by foreign speculators to a level which will damage our industries, and completely wreck the tariff policy which we have been carrying through this House.

Mr. LAMBERT: Without in the least desiring to criticise the Government—I want to help them as much as possible; I am very desirous of their success—I would impress upon them the one fact that the record of the Government will be judged entirely by how they deal with the unemployment problem. There are
2,700,000 unemployed, and unless we can get that figure down, the Government will have a bad time when the next election comes. That, however, does not matter so much as getting the figures of unemployment down.
May I reinforce the appeal made by the hon. Gentleman opposite that we must, if possible, stop this speculation in sterling. It is destroying confidence and no industrialist, no manufacturer can plan his industry if there is not confidence that sterling will be at some stable figure. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said quite frankly, and, as I think, very wisely, that he did not desire to see the pound forced up to a figure which would be injurious to industry, but if sterling is bounding up and down like a rubber ball, no industry can function, and certainly the unemployment problem will not get better. As the Government will have another year to consider this matter, may I suggest that they go outside the circle of the Bank of England for consultation and for advice? I would suggest to them that they should go to the managers or the chairmen of the great joint stock banks. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take into counsel a gentleman very well known to the President of the Board of Trade, the Chairman of the Midland Bank, Mr. McKenna, who is one of the most distinguished economists. He was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and is now chairman of one of the most important banks.
I ask my right hon. Friend to take such men into his confidence and counsel and ask their advice, because I quite agree with what the hon. Gentleman opposite said, that the Bank of England has certainly not been infallible in the last few years. Those who direct it are animated by the very highest motives and are men of the highest character, but their judgment has not been entirely right. For one thing, they sponsored the American debt settlement. Mr. Mellon has told the world that that has become quite impracticable. Then they sponsored the going back to the Gold Standard in 1925. That, again, has proved to be impracticable. What really—I will not say alarms me, but is to me a source of regret, is that the Treasury are not able to keep the best officials. Some Treasury
officials, instead of remaining at the Treasury, to give advice, have gone into the service of the Bank of England. I regret that very much— [Interruption.] In my judgment, the British Treasury is far more important even than the Bank of England, and that it should have the very best advice is of inestimable importance to this country. That is why it has been a matter of regret to me to see very eminent Treasury officials joining the Bank of England. I do not want to go into the matter of Treasury control, but it is very essential, and I hope that my right hon. Friend who is now Chancellor of the Exchequer will be at his post for a good many years. We have had a series of Chancellors of the Exchequer. I read in an interesting article —anything which comes from the pen of the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill is always interesting— —
When I went to the Treasury in November, 1924, I was the fifth Chancellor of the Exchequer to receive the seals in two years.
I hope that my right hon. Friend's tenure of office will be much longer than that, but it is obvious that if you change your Chancellor of the Exchequer, you must have the finest officials to advise him, because a Chancellor of the Exchequer must naturally receive and accept the advice of his officials. I want to put this point rather strongly to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am sure that he and I disagree with Government control over industry, but there has been, from the benches opposite, a very strong plea put forward for the nationalisation of the Bank of England. I should hate to see it, but, unless we do get some reasoned defence, unless the Treasury can exercise intelligently some control over the Bank of England, there will be an irresistible demand for its public control. I do not want to see it, and I put forward these remarks with a real desire to help the Government. I do ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to rely upon those who have great experience in finance rather than those advisers from the Bank of England whose advice in the past has been of a disastrous character.

Mr. ATTLEE: It is very satisfactory for us on these benches to welcome so many Daniels come to judgment. The other day I was standing by the tape-machine when the financial information
was coming through. A handful of Members, supporters of the Government stood around, and I was interested to observe their anxiety as to the danger from the appreciation of the pound. I could not help remarking that I thought they were the people who went to the country to save the pound, and now they were in terror lest they should be successful after all. We were the people who were going to bring the pound down, and now that they have got it down themselves, nothing pleases them better. They have no greater fear than that the pound should be brought back to parity. From our point of view, we welcome this gradual dawning of common sense on their part. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) has always taken a view with regard to this matter opposed to what is generally supposed to be the orthodox view of the bankers and the Bank of England. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne) is a new Daniel. The right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) pointed out very justly that we on this side had always been critical of the way in which this country's banking interests had been controlled, especially during the last 10 years.
We find reiterated from the benches opposed to us what we have been saying in season and out of season, that the whole policy of the City of London has not been in the interests of the productive industry of this country, and I think that the hon. Member for East Aberdeen was perfectly right when he said that a definite statement of policy is required of the Government. At the present moment the Government do not like to let their left hand know what their right hand is doing. I do not suggest who is the right hand or who is the left hand in this Government, but they do not seem to be the least upset, when, having taken in a crisis inadequate measures, they then proceed to counter them by something quite different in the sphere of the currency. We on this side maintain that the financial organisation of this country should not be left in the hands of a comparatively irresponsible body such as the Bank of England. I gather from letters in the public Press that the Court of the Bank of England never knows what is going to happen until Mr. Norman comes down and tells them about it. We have been told to-day that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer does not know much about it, and that he has not much control. We suggest that he is the man to control, but he denies it. The same was done by his predecessor Lord Snowden, who was the most faithful follower the Bank ever had.
We on these benches have always opposed that view. We claim that the Government should have a plan with regard to the exchange, that they should have a plan with regard to the banks, and that they should use whatever forces they have at their command, and, if they have not forces enough, let them take powers to see that the finances of this country, the financial organisation and the banking system are used for the good of the productive farces of this country. I entirely agree with what the right hon. Member for South Molton said, that we have seen during the past year the interests of agriculture and the interests of industry in this country sacrificed to the rather narrow interests of the City of London,. I do not intend to go into any details on that point, but I would again stress the point that was made by the hon. Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) on Friday, namely, the danger, in our present position, of these fluctuations, especially those caused by the floods of short-term money. If this is a Government that is supposed to be riding the storm and not merely drifting, it should get at the helm and guide us in this matter.

Mr. DAVID MASON: I have listened with interest to the remarks just made from the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Member who spoke attacked a number of my hon. Friends as "Daniels come to judgment." He said that they had attacked his party at the last General Election, because, if it came into office and the pound had gone down to a very small sum, that would be detrimental to the finances of this country.

Mr. ATTLEE: The hon. Member will excuse me, but our suggestion was that you should control the Bank of England.

Mr. MASON: I rather gathered that the hon. Member's attack on us was that we are now going back on our original idea of attacking the Labour party as the party that would have a very bad effect on the credit of the country because
they would let the pound go down, whereas now many hon. Members were in favour of the pound going down. I think I am not misrepresenting the hon. Gentleman when I say that. He agrees. Well, I think that our attitude was perfectly consistent. He knows that one of the proposals put forward by the Labour party at the last General Election was that we should mobilise our securities to support the pound. That was a most unsound financial proposal. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree with me.

Mr. ATTLEE: It was done during the War.

Mr. MASON: Yes, it was done during the War, but when your backs are to the wall and you are fighting for your existence you do things that you will not do in peace.

Mr. ATTLEE: That was what you told us.

Mr. MASON: Exactly, and we were justified in doing everything to extricate our country and our allies from a very serious position. The reason for which you do things in war provides the very argument why you should not do them in peace. Any appearance of mobilising our securities in order artificially to support the pound in time of peace would be to exhaust what little remains of our reserve and to bring our last state to a state worse than it has ever been before. I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman wishes to attack any of my hon. Friends whom he now calls "Daniels come to judgment," because of what he thinks is their inconsistent attitude. I admit what the hon. Gentleman says when he directly advocates, not the improvement of the pound but the—

Mr. BOOTHBY: What does the hon. Member mean by improving the pound?

Mr. MASON: Restoring the pound to its old parity. What I meant was that the hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Opposition was quite correct. We agree upon the necessity for a restoration of the pound, and that that will take a considerable time. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) is aware that all our currency is based upon the pound sterling being equivalent to 123¼ grains of standard gold. It is not worth
that to-day, but that was the basis of our currency and was the Gold Standard of this country from which, as he reminded us, we have now passed but to which many of us hope to return. There may be differences of opinion as to what is the right way to return.
Might I venture to express my amazement at what the Chancellor said in his speech last Friday when he, while keeping rather an open mind on the subject, talked in a vague manner of mixing gold with something? He did not seem to have a very clear and definite idea as to what constitutes the Gold Standard. I think the hon. Member for East Aberdeen will agree with me that the Gold standard is the basis of our currency. He might wish to get back to the old parity. If he does, then I am sure that, as an honest and upright man, he will admit that our currency notes were issued upon that basis. They were issued on the basis to which I have referred and were handed over to the Bank of England. The same basis existed up to September of last year.

Mr. WARD LAW-MILNE: Does the hon. Gentleman forget that, in addition to £150,000,000 or thereabouts covered by gold in the past, we had a fiduciary issue of £260,000,000, and that the exchange to gold of all this money would never have been possible?

Mr. MASON: The fiduciary issue is subject to the same law In the Act under which provision was made for a fiduciary issue of £260,000,000, the hon. Member will find, if he will do me the honour to read it, that there is a specific Section which gives the holder of a currency note the right to go to the Bank of England in business hours and obtain gold. That provision was carried on in the Act which transferred the control of the currency from the Treasury to the Bank of England. Under that Act we were operating last September when we went off the Gold Standard.

Mr. BOOTHBY: May I ask the hon. Member one question? On what principle of justice or equity does he justify the repayment of a debt in a currency worth rather more than twice the currency in which it was borrowed, in terms of commodities?

Mr. MASON: That is a very fair point. I do not dispute it. It is very difficult in this matter to repay on just the same basis as that upon which you borrow. I can only reply to the question by recalling the period when we were off the Gold Standard during the War. During that period of financing the War the creditors of the State, the note-holders and currency-holders, were penalised. We all remember that we had to pay large, advance prices for our clothes, that the cost of living went up, and that the purchasing power of the pound -went down to about 10s. or 12s. I think the question of the hon. Gentleman is a fair one for him to put, but it is impossible to answer it. At that time we went forward in faith, and we are going forward in faith now. Many of us have hope that we will be able to restore the old parity, but other hon. Members say that that is impossible. They say that that would penalise trade.
The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne) made a very moderate speech. He undoubtedly believes that the effect of trying to restore the pound has a penalising effect upon our export trade. Will he allow me to say that I think that that point is very much exaggerated? Many people, when we went; off the Gold Standard expected that that would give great impetus to our export trade, and that it would be equivalent to a tariff, but it has a penalising effect upon our imports and therefore the fall in our aggregate trade by this so-called advantage is very much exaggerated. I believe that there is little if any advantage in a depreciated currency. To the spinners of Lancashire importing raw cotton, obviously it would be an advantage to have a pound that was worth 4.86 dollars, so that they could purchase for every pound 4.86 dollars' worth of cotton, rather than a pound which had depreciated and could only purchase 3.70 dollars' worth.

Mr. CROSSLEY: Is the hon. Member aware that only about one-tenth of the total cost of finished cotton is represented by the purchase of the raw material, and that the other nine-tenths is represented by the cost of manufacture?

Mr. MASON: That may be. I think if you consult many spinners and other importers they will tell you that to-day
they are being penalised in the importation of their commodities, foodstuffs and raw materials. They undoubtedly have to suffer. If this were an advantage, why let us worry at all? Why not let the pound go to a shilling? Why worry about maintaining our credit or maintaining a standard? I can assure my hon. Friends that if they will give, as no doubt many have given, close study to this problem, they will agree-with me that the idea that a depreciated currency is an advantage to a country is exaggerated, and that it is only a temporary advantage. A seller with goods on his shelves does get an advantage. This Bill is apparently to counteract these fluctuations by giving power to the Treasury to interfere with exchange operations. I am very glad that the Government has now dropped those powers. I think they are bad powers to have and I hope they will not use them. They have given us to understand that it is not their intention to do so, and therefore we may hope that this Bill will be a dead letter as far as action is concerned.
I would like to offer one or two observations before I close on what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he thought would be the future gold standard of this country. I was amazed when in his speech he spoke so lightly of mixing his standards. I hope there is no possibility—and here I do not intend to afflict the House with a dissertation on the evils of bimetallism—of perhaps mixing it with silver or some other commodity. I think that will be just the last stroke in depreciating our credit and putting us in a worse mess than we are in to-day. He did finally come down on the side of the Gold Standard. We rejoice that he has arrived there, and I hope that he will stay there, and that he will not for one moment give further support to the idea of a mixed or bimetallic standard. I believe that for our credit it is better to wait until the pound has improved.
I would ask the hon. Member for East Aberdeen whether the advantage of restoring the pound has not been immediately felt in a lessening of the loss from which we had to suffer when we repaid those credits which cost this country £17,500,000 That was a very serious loss. We are not making millions
so easily or so readily that we can afford that. Had we waited a little till the pound had improved still more, I think I am right in stating that the loss would have been much less. The Treasury estimated that if we went back to parity in the repayment of our debt to the United States, this country would save £336,000,000. There are many other advantages, but the so-called advantages of working on a depreciated exchange and thereby stimulating our export trade I believe to be grossly exaggerated. The only way to increase both export and import trades is to restore a sound state of finances in this country and to get back in time to the old parity.

4.30 p.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The hon. Member who has just sat down will never learn anything. I only intervene to ask a particular question. This is a Bill for the management of the currency. On the Second Reading we had a marvellously clear indication from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to what he wanted. He said that sooner or later:
We shall find that we have got to link our currency, our sterling, once again to a metallic basis.
He went on to say:
For the time being our currency is a managed currency. I think the sort of index which the hon. and learned Gentleman"—
the hon. and learned Gentleman for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps)—
had in mind is probably the sort of thing that one would naturally look to for the purpose."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th March, 1932; col. 2157, Vol. 262.]
I turn to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). Here is the suggestion with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer agrees:
I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the proper objective of the Government and the Bank of England should be to get the sterling stabilised on wholesale prices, which should gradually be brought back, over a period of time, to something like the 1929 level.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th March, 1932; col. 2130, Vol. 262.]
The really important item resulting from the Debate on Friday was that proposal of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol and its qualified acceptance by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was quite
as clear as any Chancellor has a right to be in face of the speculation in sterling which is going on now. But what we have a right to ask is, if his idea is more or less in accord with the suggestion made from the Opposition Benches, and, I may add made from any other sources as well, for Sir Charles Harris was advocating it, and it was also advocated further hack in the Macmillan Committee's Report. If that is the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he sees the pound gradually stabilising on the basis of the 1929 wholesale prices, what is he going to do about it. Here is the machinery in his hands in this Bill—inadequate machinery, but, coupled with his power over the Bank of England in the consultations which are now so frequent, he could, if he chose to do so, bring about the object which he stated that he had in view. If he does nothing, the credit of this country will continue to languish, the situation will continue to be uncertain, and speculation and fluctuation in the pound will continue. We do not want that period to be unduly drawn out.
It is certainly the business of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the Government, if they see the goal in view, to lay their plans for arriving at that goal. The pound has got to fall if we are to get back to the wholesale prices of 1929. The 1929 prices were higher than they are to-day. Therefore, to stabilise at those prices the pound will have to fall by an amount which is calculable, in order to bring back the wholesale prices of 1929. Here in this Bill is the machinery; here is the power to manage the currency. Are the Government going to manage it in the direction of a stabilisation on that basis or not? I think that practically everyone is agreed, with the exception of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. D. Mason), everyone with any connection with trade or industry, that it is desirable to get the pound stabilised, and that it is desirable, if possible, to stabilise on the wholesale price basis.

Mr. D. MASON: I am in favour of the pound being stabilised.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: But not at that value.

Mr. MASON: No.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Most people are in favour of it being stabilised, and on the basis of the wholesale prices of 1929 rather than on the dollar parity. If we have reason to believe that the Treasury sees that that is the best course, what is the Treasury going to do about it? I join with the hon. Member for Eastern Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) in saying to the Government, "Whatever is your policy, for goodness sake stick to it and do something to bring it about. Do not let things drift indefinitely." We had an extremely bad experience during last week of the rise in the price of sterling, a rise which hits our export trade and benefits merely the speculators in sterling. If we are to stop that there must be a definite and consistently carried out policy on the part of the Government.
That policy can be carried out in a number of ways. It can be carried out, in the first place, by dropping the Bank Rate, so that we no longer attract short-term money to this country. It can be carried out, secondly, by encouraging loans of British capital abroad, by not regarding as unpatriotic the investment of British capital abroad, but regarding it as an assistance in the definite policy of the Government. It can be carried out by dropping the tariff and relying solely on the fall in the value of the pound to balance trade, to restrict imports and expand exports. It can be brought about by not balancing the Budget, though I do not care to mention that. If you do not balance the Budget the pound will fall. But I suggest that if you try to bring the result about by bimetallism, by bringing in silver, if you are to go into the market to sell sterling and buy silver, no doubt that will send down the value of sterling, but that would merely mean a novel method of spending money, not balancing the Budget and not getting any value for the watering of the currency. There are those ways of bringing down the pound, of arriving at your new stabilised value, based on the wholesale prices of 1929.
The Government ought to be considering and making up their minds how they are going to arrive at the result. If they do not want to stabilise on this basis, if they are afraid of the bankers, if they are afraid of the influence of the moneylenders upon the situation, let them
say frankly that that is so, and we shall know where we are. But they have now given us a broad hint that in the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer it is desirable to stabilise on a lower level. They must make their plans to get to that lower level, so as to do it with the greatest possible advantage to this country, for it can be done in foolish ways as well as wise ones. Having made their plans they should carry them through, and let us get back to a currency stabilised on something better than gold, if possible, at a lower metallic value for the sovereign. Let us be quite certain that it will not be done accidentally. It must be done by the conscious intention of the Government working towards that end. Therefore I beg the Financial Secretary to the Treasury not to give any answer to-day as to how he will bring it about, but to set up an inquiry in the Treasury as to how best it can be done, if indeed that is the intention of the Treasury. If it is not the intention of the Treasury, let us be told as soon as possible that it is not the intention. Do not leave it to the speculator to ruin industry, with the Government assisting by not being able to make up their minds as to what they want to do.

Sir GEORGE GILLETT: The proposals of the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken are not, I think, as certain as he believes of having the result which he desires. He stated that speculators would be discouraged by a reduction of the Bank Rate. As a matter of fact when the speculation of a few days ago was being carried out it was quite obvious that the difference between spot and forward exchange was quite sufficient to justify any speculator, in putting through his transaction quite irrespective of the rate of interest, that he would obtain in this country better prices on Treasury Bills, and even if the Government had put down the Bank Rate and Treasury Bills had been issued at a lower figure than those of last week, that would have been of practically no importance to the foreign speculator who was sending his money here.
The desires of the right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) and of the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) are not quite the same. I could not follow the argument of the hon. Member for Limehouse when
he referred to the policy of the late Labour Government, because if the late Labour Government had it in their minds that they were quite prepared to see the country go off gold, I do not understand why that Government provisionally agreed to "cuts" and a number of other recommendations which, it is true, their arguments did not appear to support but which it was publicly stated they were quite prepared to agree to under certain conditions. The general impression at any rate was that, at that time, the Labour Government were very anxious to try to prevent the country going off gold, and if the policy of the Labour party is now altered it cannot be said that the policy that they support to-day was the policy of the late Labour Government.
The hon. Member for Eastern Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) referred to the action of the Governor of the Bank of England in not reducing the Bank Rate as rapidly as many would have wished. There is one aspect of that question which has to be borne in mind. Looking at the position at home it would have seemed to those of us who have not the special knowledge that the Bank of England has, that the Bank Rate might certainly have been reduced more rapidly, but it has to be remembered that the Bank Rate has a second function, that it acts to a certain extent as a warning to the banking and financial world as to the policy that they should pursue; and when the Governor and the Directors of the Bank of England were going to put down the Bank Rate they had to face the fact that it would be regarded in financial circles and in the business community as a certain indication that the Bank of England were feeling happier not only about the home position but about the position abroad. When we remember the position on the Continent of Europe and look at the problem from that standpoint, we can find some justification for the delay in reducing the Bank Rate as rapidly as some who look at the matter purely from the condition at home would have liked.
Regarding the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Friday, there is one point on which I would like to lay special stress, and I hope that whoever is to reply for the Government will kindly explain a little more fully what the Chancellor of the Exchequer
really meant in some of the concluding words of his speech. Reference has been made to the expressions used by the Chancellor, in which he seemed to indicate that to a very considerable extent he agrees with what is undoubtedly the view of business men in this country as to the extreme importance of not having too rapid a rise, or at present any rise, in the price of sterling. I gathered that in his very cautious words the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a certain measure of support to that opinion. I wish to say how important I feel it is that the Government should fully appreciate how very strong is the industrial view as to the importance of this question.
The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. D. Mason) said that he thought that the depreciation in sterling was not so great an advantage to the export trade as many had made out. With so many other countries going off the Gold Standard, I agree-with him that the advantage has not been as great as might have been anticipated when this country first went off gold. I believe that the correct view of the matter is that so long as the rise in home prices does not correspond with the depreciation which is taking place in money, there is a distinct advantage to the export trade. It is an advantage, however, which ultimately disappears when home prices rise to such an extent as to wipe out the benefit which was enjoyed during the earlier stages. I am certain that the industrial world very fully appreciates the importance of this consideration to-day.
That is why I wish that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could have found it possible to have been a little more definite in his statement on Friday. He said that the Government were not coming to any definite conclusion as to what future policy would be, in regard to a return to the Gold Standard. That is a statement with which, personally, I entirely agree. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to give his support to the idea of trying to retain the present value of sterling at the level at which it has been lately. The only thing which causes some doubt to arise in my mind, in that connection, is his reference to the fact that the Macmillan Committee recommended that control of monetary
policy should remain in the hands of the Bank of England.
I would point out to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury who will, I presume, reply on this Debate, that there are two points on which the Chancellor's position seems to be unsound. The first is that you cannot say to the Bank of England, "Decide this question; we leave it entirely in your hands." Why is that so? Because, although the Bank of England may have been capable of carrying out the recommendations of the Cunliffe Committee, ultimately, if this country was going back to gold, whoever outside the Government was carrying out that policy would have to come to the Government and ask the Government to put through a Measure in order to give effect to whatever had been decided upon. Ultimately it would be necessary to come to the Government if any attitude was being taken up other than that of leaving things as they are. The Government cannot possibly divest itself of the ultimate responsibility in this matter. The second point is: How are you going to keep your exchange fairly stable? One way would be to have a currency reserve by which, either the Bank of England or the Government would hold francs and dollars which they had purchased against the time when they wished to influence the exchange in certain directions. I should like to know if action of that kind is to be taken, who would take it, and who would be responsible if a loss were occasioned by a policy of that kind? If a loss is occasioned, will the Bank of England hear the loss? If the Bank is not going to bear the loss, then the Government would have to bear the loss, and I venture to assert that you cannot possibly hand over entirely to the Bank of England the responsibility for incurring a loss for which the Government afterwards will become liable.
It seems to me that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech possibly went rather farther than he intended to go. He seemed to give the impression that he was placing the responsibility in regard to this problem in the hands of the Bank of England. We have to bear in mind that, in the City of London we are influenced very largely by financial considerations, and it is important that the industrial aspect of the question should be constantly kept before those who are going to institute a national policy in
regard to the future of sterling, whether it is the Governor of the Bank of England or the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is why I hope that the Financial Secretary will make it clear that the Government fully appreciate the importance which the industrial community attach to having no rapid rise in the pound. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to assure them that such is the definite idea of the Government and that, whoever carries it out, the view of the Government will be very strongly expressed that that is the policy which they wish to see carried out at the present time.

Mr. TINKER: ; This Bill which appeared at first to be a simple and non-contentious Measure has provoked a great deal of controversy. On Friday I heard 10 or 11 speeches upon it and no two of them agreed. To-day we have had some seven speeches which have shown the same differences of opinion as to what this Bill means and what its results will be. It is very important that this subject should be discussed thoroughly on the Floor of the House of Commons and I think that we are entitled to some lead from the Government on this question. Fluctuations in currency have a great effect on business and industry and on what people are to expect as a result of the present situation. Unless we have some direction from the Government those who are looking forward to greater stability will be placed in a very awkward position. In view of the importance of this question to our trade a little more time ought to have been given to the discussion of this Bill. I was very much surprised to find the Third Reading of this Bill being taken immediately after the Committee stage. I expected that much more time would be given to it, especially after the differences of opinion which have appeared in regard to it. The House was certainly entitled to have had a. longer time in which to weigh up the opinions expresesd in the Debate of Friday.
I entered the House on Friday not expecting any discussion on the Bill at all because its title "Financial Emergency Enactments (Continuance) Bill" seemed to indicate that it vas something which might be taken without any discussion and which certainly would not arouse any feeling such as it actually did arouse.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer in dealing with it on Friday smiled his usual smile, as much as to say, "I can take matters very easily because these speeches cancel each other out." But the right hon. Gentleman did say that this country, in his opinion, must ultimately be linked up to some metallic basis. He stopped at that; he did not tell us exactly what he meant, and I think we are entitled to have something more on that subject from whoever replies to-day. Are the Government prepared to let things drift on until, all over the world, there is some kind of settlement, or is this country going to give a lead in these matters of currency and finance? What are the Government going to do to obtain a settled currency and establish our financial position? These are very important questions to many thousands of people who are waiting for some lead and some guidance from the Government.
We on these benches believe that as regard these matters we should not be in the hands of the Bank of England all the time. We believe that the Bank of England might to be nationalised, that the nation ought to take control of it and that fluctuations of currency and the present methods of control in money matters have gone as far as they ought to go. We ask the Government to-day, are they prepared to continue in the present state of uncertainty, or are they prepared to give definite answers to the questions which have been put by the various speakers on this Bill? Those of us who are wondering what the policy of the Government is going to be will then be able to decide on our own line of action. We have not decided to oppose this Bill, but I think, after all that has been said in these discussions, and in the absence of any definite statement from the Government, we are entitled to say that we are not altogether satisfied. Unless the Government are prepared to tell us exactly where they stand on these matters, I am going to ask hon. Members on these benches to go to a Division on the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I wish to raise a rather different aspect of this Bill. Up to the present we have been concerned with questions of currency, but there is another side to this subject and one which very much affects agricul-
ture. I refer to the question of exploitation. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will not always base his case in these matters on the published prices of livestock which appear in certain periodicals, because to a certain extent these published prices are rather in the nature of fairy tales. People who sell stock, when they make inquiries are usually unable to find anybody who has actually received these high prices. In Lincolnshire where there is a very useful sheep-breeding district, we have had very bad prices lately, and I wish to ask the Government whether they are doing anything to find out. the cause of the difference between the prices which are received by the producers of stock and the prices which are paid for British mutton in London.
Recently producers in Lincolnshire were getting for hogs and wethers—I may remark incidentally that in this connection hogs are sheep—an average of about 4½d. dead weight, while in London the price of British mutton was about 1s. 4½d. That is a very considerable discrepancy. I should like, at the same time, to point out that on the average the price of sheep has fallen 40 per cent. compared with last year. If hon. Members will inquire from their wives I think they will find that the price of British mutton has not fallen 40 per cent. in the present year. There appears to be a. certain amount of misapprehension as to what are the correct figures for wholesale prices. I do not think that the market prices published are sufficiently accurate for this reason. One or two markets in one or two districts are taken and not an average over many markets which are selling the same commodities. There is, for instance, Louth market, which is the largest in Lincolnshire and one of the largest in England. I do not think that the prices at that market are taken into consideration. For that reason, there would appear to be something wrong with regard to the relation between these wholesale prices and the retail prices in London, and I ask the Government to look into the matter. As far as I can see the producer is being "done down," but the consumer is not benefiting. There is too great a discrepancy between what the Lincolnshire producer is getting for his hogs and his wethers and what the London consumer is paying for mutton.
This applies also to bacon and other things, and it is a serious point which should be given earnest consideration by the Government.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. J. JONES: I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) on bringing us back to our muttons. Up to now we have been debating questions of currency, but the hon. and gallant Member has raised a subject which is of more interest to his constituency which apparently mostly consists of sheep. I, on the other hand, represent men in the East End of London who work at the docks and who are greatly concerned with any currency policy which affects exports. They find that the dice is loaded against them and that the financial policy adopted by the Government has had the consequential effect that large numbers of them have been automatically thrown out of work. According to the figures of the Board of Trade, which cannot He, during February there was a drop in exports which has had a serious effect on the district which I represent to the best of my ability. I do not pretend to understand all about finance. I have known more about the lack of it in the course of my career. We find in the docks to-day a larger number of men signing on the Employment Exchanges, even though the means test is in operation, than before the present Government came into office, mainly because these people depend on the sending of goods out of this country, and goods cannot be sent out, because the trade is not there. We heard a great deal of talk a short time ago about dumping into this country, but that dumping has been conspicuous by its absence from the East End of London. The dockers would be glad to see the stuff dumped here, so as to give them a chance of unloading and delivering it, but it has not been dumped.
Now they have this second thing against them, that the increase in the value of the pound has not meant any advantage to them. It may be an advantage to those who gamble in gold and who deal in metals, but all this gambling in gold has simply meant less employment to those who want employment, and they have suffered as a consequence of the gamble. Generally, the workers do suffer as a result of gambling,
particularly when it is gambling in the things that matter from the standpoint of the life of the workers. Have the Government a policy in this matter? Have they decided upon a policy? The name given to the Bank of England is an insult to the people of England. It is not the Bank of England; it is a private corporation, guaranteed by the nation. That is all it is, and it is not controlled. We have been told in this House that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is our greatest financial authority in this House, has no control. Is he an office boy to the Chairman of the Governors? Are we to be told in this House that Parliament has no right to say what we shall do or shall not do? All that we have to do is to foot the bill, and if they get into trouble, we have to give them a moratorium. In my opinion, we ought to give them a crematorium.
We are told that we know nothing about finance. We certainly have had Members speaking here to-day who do know something about it, and a great deal more than I do. I would not dare to enter into a competition with their knowledge on that subject, but if a country finds itself in financial difficulties, as we have done, and if we have only one financial authority to appeal to, surely we have some right, when we are going to shoulder the responsibility, to ask that authority to meet us at least fifty-fifty. Are they meeting us now? Does the reduction in the Bank Rate assist us? Does the gambling in gold assist the trade of this country 7 If the reduction in the Bank Rate has been a means of assistance, if it is going to increase trade and give us an opportunity of employment, well and good, but if, on the other hand, we are going to have, as a consequence of the reduction in the Bank Rate, an influx of gambling and speculation, and it takes away all the value of the increased productivity and opportunity to pay, then I say that what we have lost on the swings we have not gained on the roundabouts, and we are down and out as a consequence of the policy pursued by those in other places to take advantage of our position.
I happened to be across the water a short time ago, in Amsterdam and Rotterdam. I did not go there at my own expense, I can tell you, and I was not over there as a German spy, but I
went as a delegate of my trade union to a conference, and I found that Dutchmen were gambling in British sterling, and doing very well out of it. They were able to make big profits at the expense of the people of this country in the matter of the difference between the value of our gold and their guilder. We have nothing to do with this gambling, and if the Government are not going to take steps to prevent it and to give us the opportunity of utilising our position —because, after all, we are a great exporting country still, in spite of the slump—if they do not help to save the situation by giving our finance something like parity in the world, then we shall suffer very materially.
I do not pretend, as I say, to know a great deal about finance, but I know that if a country is going to handicap itself it will not prosper. We were told that if we saved the pound we should save the world. Well, we have saved the world, but lost ourselves. Now it is going up. and they say we are going down. The more the pound goes up, the more we go down. What about the story told at the General Election? "Save the pound, O my people." Now the pound has been saved, and the people have been lost, and although you have put people on the means test, 130,000 of them, you have more unemployed to-day, admittedly, on the Employment Exchanges than before you started to save the pound. You have saved nothing except your own faces for the time being, and you will not save them for long. Shortly, yon will be left with nothing but your eyes to weep with. Hon. Members opposite can smile like cherubim. It is the saving grace of our new statesmen; their smile is the only thing that helps them through their career.
I only ask them to lay down a policy in this matter of finance. They were out to save the pound, out to save the world, but they have not saved themselves yet. We have a right to ask, although we are a small minority, what is their financial policy. Platitudes will not help; we want to know definitely, Are they prepared to allow themselves to be gerrymandered by international financiers? We have had a magnificent example of it to-day. I was very sorry to read in the paper that Mr. Kreuger had committed
suicide. He was one of the instruments of international finance. He was one of the people who had the sense to commit suicide before the final issue. I do not want to weep over the graves of men who are not dead yet, but I want to say that that is proving to us what is. happening through international gambling, not in money—money does not matter—but in the lives of the people. That is what they are gambling in, and in order to stop it we ask, What is the Government's policy in finance? Are they going to lay down some policy which Great Britain will pursue?
During the War we did certain things. Cannot we do in peace what we did in War? Cannot we say that the interests of the nation come before the interests of any section of it? You call yourselves a National Government. If you are, why not say that, in so far as finance can assist us out of our difficulties, everybody, the Bank of England included, will have to toe the line? But no; we have to study the sectional interests. This bank, whether public or private, has to be put first. I put the interests of the common people before all your interests. The working class are the only class that are not a class; they are the nation. All other classes live on them. Who pays the bill? At the finish, it is poor old Phil Garlic. The parson prays for all, the lawyer pleads for all, the soldier fights for all, the worker pays for all. We ask the Government to tell us, What is their policy to help the people get a better chance of living? Unemployment is increasing, in spite of all the subterfuges that have been adopted to reduce the numbers on the Employment Exchanges, and to transfer them to the local authorities and public assistance committees. You are still in the same position, and, therefore, we ask, What policy have the Government got? Mere platitudes will not help us. We want a definite declaration of principle and policy in this question.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Nearly every speech, whether from experts or from non-experts, has agreed on one principle, and that is that we should very much like to have a fixed pound, but my trouble is that, although all the wise men that we have heard, young and old, have told us different things, some of the young
ones, and some of the so-called business people, seem to think that business is bound to be prosperous so long as the pound has fallen and that when it fell in the autumn there were certain natural advantages to business in this country. We had a, very interesting speech from the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. D. Mason), who wished to see the pound go back to its pre-war value. He apparently is another form of expert, but there is no doubt that, whoever is right, if you carry out their desires to their extreme, you could not do better than by just going slowly.
If the pound really went down very many shillings, to 10s., or to 5s., there would be hopeless chaos in this country, yet, at the mime time, certain exporters for a time would be able to profit, in the same way as certain financial interests are bound to profit if the pound goes up, as it has been doing in the last few days. It has always seemed to me, as one who is not tied to either school, that the only way to look at the question of stabilising the pound is that money as a whole is simply the means for weighing goods. If you try to play about with the weighing machine in a shop, until you are found out, you can get on very well and make a considerable profit, but if every other shop in the district also gives false weights you lose the benefit, in exactly the same way as when other nations came off the pound the benefit that we got from going off the pound ourselves was practically cancelled. You can carry the analogy further and show how it works in almost every trade, but that is not my purpose.
Although every one of us would like to get some stabilised policy laid down by the Government, it is hopeless, in the face of international finance, to imagine that one Government can lay down the financial position for the whole of the world. I think you will have to have international agreements before you can come to any stability of this kind. I do not propose to go into the great questions, such as debts, which are affected, but it is really hopeless—and not only hopeless, but unreasonable—to come to the Government to-day and demand that they should lay down a policy of fixing the pound once and for all in some way that will command universal confidence for ever and ever. We should all like to get that, and to see the pound fixed, but I do not think
it is humanly possible to do it. I would like to say a word of warning to the Government. A speech made the other day by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has been quoted over and over again. In that speech he asked for prices to be stabilised on the 1929 level
by an anti-deflation policy or if one would prefer to call it so, a slight inflation."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th March, 1932; col. 2130, Vol. 262.]
I hope that the Government, whatever else they do, will not try deliberately either to inflate or deflate the pound. The more the Government keeps out of international finance and finance in this country the better it will be for the nation. Let the people who understand these things settle these questions, and let not the Government imagine that they must keep in close contact and that kind of thing, as they have done hitherto. I do not want them to take the advice of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), who has given us so much instruction on this matter. He knows something about herrings, but, with all his wisdom, I hope that the Government will not take his advice on finance, because with less responsible people on the Front Government Bench—

Mr. BOOTHBY: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the bankers in the past have shown themselves to be right all the way through?

Mr. WILLIAMS: No, I am saying that even the hon. Gentleman is not always perfect, and that the people least likely to be perfect are the Government, which is continually changing and going into this question from different political angles. We must keep the Government out of these matters, and let the people who have spent their whole lives in finance deal with them.

Mr. SMITHERS: I want to reply to a remark made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). He mentioned that the lowering of the Bank Rate would have the effect of making London not so attractive for foreign money. It is curious that last week, when the Bank Rate was reduced, it was intended to have an opposite effect. The tendency for money to come to London was not due to the higher rate; it was due to difficulties and want of confidence
on the Continent. The reduction of the Bank Rate was offered as a gesture that the Bank of England had more confidence and hope in the credit and future of this country, and it was that factor which attracted Continental money, so it had an effect opposite that which the hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to think that it would have.
Much has been said in criticism of the Bank of England. I hold no brief for that wonderful institution, but I agree to a great extent with the remark that has just fallen from the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). Government control of the Bank of England would be a disaster to this country, because it is most important that the control of the finances of the country in their technical operations should be absolutely free from all political influence. The Bank of England has had during the last 10 years to take the most momentous decisions at the most critical times. [HON. MEMBERS: "All wrong!"] They are not the only experts whose forecasts have not been carried out. In 1921 a body of international experts met at Brussels and decided that Germany should pay £6,600,000,000 in 30 annual instalments, and, in the light of the happenings since, that decision of experts has been shown to be almost farcical. Hon. Members opposite say that the Bank of England have made great mistakes. What is the result of their policy, however? To-day, after all our troubles, the credit of this country stands higher than it ever stood before in English history. It is coming back, and the whole world now is trying to return to sterling.
I would ask the House to consider what is the position of the banks in this country. It is liquid and sound, and has the full confidence of the people. In America last year over 2,000 banks failed, and about 1,500,000,000 dollars in deposits were lost by depositors. What is the position in this country? Working men from villages, old ladies, people who know nothing about finance have ingrained in them so much confidence in the credit of this country and the way that that credit is managed by the Bank of England, that they are bringing out their hordes of gold and their gold ornaments, and handing them over the counter in exchange for pieces of paper which bear the im-
print of the Bank of England. The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) made a remark about this country coming off the Gold Standard, and spoke of the way that we on this side of the House did everything to keep the country on to the Gold Standard. The Government of the day were absolutely right to strain every nerve to honour our obligations and to keep us on the Gold Standard, but we were forced off through no fault of our own. The demands of America and France to take gold, not as mere balances of trade but as a commodity for hoarding purposes, compelled us to abandon the Gold Standard, and we were perfectly right to stop on it as long as we possibly could.
The point has arisen to-day about fixing the pound at some stable point. I would reinforce that by saying that it is of the utmost importance that the Government should, as soon as possible, give a lead to the world as to the monetary policy of this country, because that will be a deciding factor in the prosperity or the failure of Europe and the world during the next few years. It is important that we should see to what extent the financial state of middle Europe and the Lausanne Conference will affect the exchange during the next few months because it will be a great mistake to fix the pound at a point at which we are not able to maintain it. Before we can fix the pound at a suitable point, we must realise the position of the Bank of England. If it could control the finances of the world, its task would be simple, but there are great forces outside its control, and all it can hope to do is to control our finances and our exchange and currency operations so that they will give a lead to other countries which, if they are wise, they will follow as much as possible. I hope that the leading financiers of other countries, especially of France and America, will read something of this Debate and realise our difficulties, because until they do so, and until they learn to be better neighbours among the nations of the world, we cannot hope to win more material prosperity and to find a way out of the world's problems. The mere taking of the powers under this Bill will obviate the using of them, and although I think That the Bill is wise, I believe that the
credit of the country is so on the upgrade, and that these powers will never have to be used.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): We have had an interesting Debate, although I must say that it does not inspire me with any desire to see the currency of this country managed by the House of Commons. Though in the multitude of counsellors there is safety, yet, if all the counsels are different, there is the danger that while the doctors differ, the patient may die. The House of Commons has very rightly desired to review the position in which the country finds itself, and in the course of that review some questions have been put to the Government as to the course of the Government's future policy. It seems to me that all the critics were summed up by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) who, after begging the Government to say what their policy was, begged them with equal fervour to make no declaration on the subject at the present time. I think that those critics who have been most vociferous in their demand for an exposition of the Government's policy will be the most vehement in their support of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
Let me ask the House to come back to the Measure which is, after all, what we are discussing to-day. It is called the Financial Emergency Enactments (Contitnuance) Bill, and, on the face of it, it bears a declaration by the Government that the state of financial emergency which may require action by the Government is continuing. If all that were necessary to end the emergency were a few vigorous speeches, a few resounding thumps upon this Box, a few ukases issued by the House of Commons or somebody else to the international bankers of the world—if we could get out of our emergency so easily, the emergency would have been passed, and there would have been no need for any such measure as this. We are dealing with a situation which has rapidly changed. We have to follow events, and not to lead them. We do not control the whole world. We do not always control even the opinions which we held the day before yesterday. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) make a vehement denun-
ciation of the policy of returning to the Gold Standard, which he did so much by voice and vote to support when it was being put through by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to whom he was Parliamentary Private Secretary.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I must protest against that. He went back to the Gold Standard before I got to him.

5.30 p.m.

Major ELLIOT: The hon. Member for East Aberdeen was not then Parliamentary Private Secretary to the right hon. Gentleman, but subsequently to those rash actions he went to his aid. He cannot escape from the accusation by the statement he has made, for even after the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) had exposed the policy of the return to the Gold Standard in all its horror, the hon. Member for East Aberdeen rushed to his aid, and for years thereafter upheld his flagging hand and urged him to greater and greater feats of financial endurance. The Bill states that it is desirable to continue in force certain enactments passed in connection with the financial emergency. That is all the power which the Bill seeks to give to the Government, and to read into it the wide, sweeping suggestions which have been made from various parts of the House is to read into it something which has not been done hitherto and which it is not the intention of the Government, if it can possibly be avoided, to do in the future. Only one Order was made under the Act passed on 21st September. That was the Order of 22nd September, and it dealt, as it could alone deal, with the purchase of foreign exchange by British subjects or persons at present resident in the United Kingdom.
It is quite hopeless for us to expect that under this Bill we can give the Government the power, as suggested by the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) in a singularly clear and lucid speech, to control dealings in Amsterdam, or Rotterdam, or other cities which he visits in the course of his trade union activities. It is not within the power of the British Treasury to issue Orders controlling markets in Amsterdam or Rotterdam; and if it were in their power to do so, I think the hon. Member for Silver-town would quickly complain that we
were in some way or other interfering with the livelihood of the working class in those two important ports. We are asking for certain powers which were given to the Government last autumn to deal with a state of emergency to be continued because that state of emergency still exists, and because we believe the actions of the Government since that emergency arose have been such as to impart confidence to this House and the country. The proof of the pudding is in the eating of it. Let me bring the House back to the remarkable statement which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade was able to make when commending the Second Reading of this Bill to the House last Friday. He was able to say:
Bread is on the Food Council scale—a scale which was settled several years ago. The prices of margarine, of eggs, and of milk are exactly the same as they were in September last. Tea, if anything, has slightly diminished in cost, and meat is cheaper than it was. The price of butter from New Zealand is less than it was, and bacon, which was 11½d. per 1b. at the time we abandoned the Gold Standard, is now 9¾d. Further, it may be noticed that the average wholesale prices in this country remain lower than at any time in the year 1930, and the food prices are lower than the average of 1930, by no less than 10 per cent.''—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th March, 1932; col. 2125, Vol. 262.]
He was able to confirm those statements to-day by the further statement that although food wholesale prices have risen from 111.8 in February, 1931, to 114.2 in February, 1932—and that, I am sure, will be a subject for congratulation to the hon. Member for East Aberdeen—the retail food index has fallen from 36 to 31 between the same dates. That shows that not merely is no exploitation of the public and no profiteering taking place, but that the gap between the wholesaler and the retailer has actually narrowed during the period which is under review. Therefore, from every point of view, the action of the Government has been wise and fraught with the utmost advantage to the ordinary consuming public of this country, and profiteering, which was one of the dangers these enactments were intended to restrain, has not, in fact, taken place.
As for the general policy of the Government, the number of insured persons in employment, which was
9,316,000 in January, 1931, was 9,366,000 in January, 1932. In February, 1931, there there 9,326,000 in employment, and in February, 1932, 9,403,000. I do not say these figures can be counted on as being exactly illustrative, or that one would wish to analyse them to the last decimal place, but they certainly do indicate that the condition of employment has improved and has not grown worse within the last year, and that many of the gloomy prognostications launched so freely from all parts of the House when the crisis of September arose have not, in fact, been fulfilled in actual experience; and actual experience is the only verdict to which we can appeal. Every canon of economics, and, I might also say, every axiom of mathematics, has been challenged, and many of them have been disproved, by the events through which we have passed during the last 12 months. We no longer bow to the authority of the financial experts. Even poor, unhappy, discredited, orthodox people are beginning to lift their heads once more, and think that, perhaps, they are not such fools as was made out by the bright young people in the past. They dare to hope that even orthodoxy will eventually become respectable. In such a paradox as the situation presented to us the powers we are asking the House to renew were not extravagantly or unwisely used, and with that knowledge we ask the House to continue those powers for 12 months to come.

Mr. WARDLAWMILNE: May I put one question to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman? He has stated, very ingeniously, that we are asking him for a declaration on the long-term position. The real question which has been asked is, Will he carry out the pledge given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Act to which this Bill refers was introduced in September, which was that the Government would circumscribe or limit fluctuations in exchange? What he is really asked is whether he intends to carry out that promise.

Major ELLIOT: If I may have the leave of the House to reply to the question, I say that not only do we intend to do so, but that we have in fact done it, and the proof is the remarkable stability of prices during the past month. The pledge was repeated, and, if anything, emphasised, by the declaration of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer last Friday, when he said that, whatever his ultimate object, his immediate object was to prevent fluctuations of exchange.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: We have had a very interesting discussion, though I am sorry to say that I heard only the latter part of it. When this country went back to the Gold Standard in 1925 I think I am safe in saying that very few Members of the House, if any—and I include the Chancellor of the Exchequer—knew very clearly what the Gold Standard is, and I doubt very much whether many Members of even the present House could pass an examination on it, or whether many of the economists, even the bankers, who write to the Press, could give a very lucid explanation of it. I do not know that our return to the Gold Standard in 1925 was such a very grave blunder as people, now wise after the event, think it was. The history of the country just after that event was very troubled. We must remember the colossal losses of 1926, the wrecking of trade, and the damage done to one of the trades which, above all others, was a means of national exchange for us. A blow was struck at the coal trade from which it has never recovered, and I question whether it will recover. It brought the use of oil fuel forward by nearly a generation, and those who bought supplies of coal from abroad were made to sign long term contracts, some of which have even yet not expired. It is all very well to say that the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) made a blander, and that the Government of 1925 were misled by the bankers and others, but who was to know that the Trades Union Congress would suffer from hydrophobia and bite the country in the way it did'? Nobody expected it. Those terrible events brought about dire losses and caused a great many of the events from the effects of which we are now suffering.
Picture the revived state of the country now! Think of the men who were on unemployment benefit just prior to the election, and of the fact that the country has now to some extent lifted up its head and has a feeling that the tide is just beginning to turn—because there is no doubt that is the general feeling, not only throughout the country, but throughout Europe and the world. I think the feeling of stability is far greater in
Great Britain than it is in the United States. At all events, we feel that we at last have a Government that can govern, and that we are not ruled by the underworld. We have actually got control of our own affairs. I regard this Measure as one that is urgently necessary. We must give the Government these powers, but I humbly submit that it would be very dangerous for the Government to announce its intentions in advance, or even to indicate what it is going to do about stabilisation. That would be about as rash as if a man about to become a large investor intimated to the market that he proposed to make large purchases in certain investments, because other people would then buy in advance and he would be caught out on a rising market. The Government would do very much better to keep their counsel to themselves, and to proceed to deal day by day with the kaleidoscopic changes which are always taking place in the money market.
The reason for having gold as a standard of value is that of all the metals it is the least liable to sudden expansion. It keeps more or less stable. It is a very unfortunate phrase to speak of Great Britain "going off gold," because, as I indicated in a question the other day, that has resulted in simple people with little stores of sovereigns being ruthlessly exploited. I believe that in Egypt the Egyptians were spoiled by members of more astute races going round and telling them they had better sell their gold. In that way some of the fellaheen were deprived of their savings. The same thing happened in this country, though I do not think it occurred in Scotland, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested, because the Scottish people know the value of money too well. When we went off the Gold Standard the price of gold materially appreciated, and it has been as high as £6 6s. an ounce for fine gold instead of the usual price of £4 4s. This has brought about intense activity in the search for gold in all the auriferous areas of the world where it i3 thought likely that gold may be found. Other industries have fallen back, and men who are out of work in Africa and in Rhodesia have got their kits together and gone out into the wilderness to seek gold, and I believe they are finding it. There are rumours of big "strikes" in various places, and
nothing will help the finances of this country or of, the Empire and the world more than additional discoveries of gold. We should never have been able to continue so long as a Free Trade country if it had not been for the discoveries of gold in California in the 'forties and of the later discoveries in Australia and South Africa. There have been no great discoveries of gold since the South African discovery, the amount found in Canada making no material increase to the capital sum of gold which the world needs for its currency purposes. I believe that if the Government would leave sterling alone, though not letting it appreciate too far, and leave the price of gold at its present value, there would be important discoveries of gold.
There is another point which I was glad to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer mention in his speech on Friday. He suggested that there was a possibility of taking some other metal into the currency. All my life I have been a bimetalist, and I never thought there was enough gold in the world to satisfy currency purposes. I do not think that there is anything that would bring back prosperity to this country more quickly than a return to silver. For it is in the East that the trade recovery will first come about. I know that a great deal of shipping is now being chartered for the East, and one of the largest of our shipping concerns has been chartering additional ships for its Eastern trade. If some time ago we had taken silver into our currency, we should have derived far greater advantages from the enormous resources of China and India, and those countries would have become some of our best customers. I do not think we ought to impose the Gold Standard on those poor countries, and thus make their precious metals comparatively worthless in the markets of the world.
I ask the Government to take into their most serious consideration the question of taking silver into the currency as a means of exchange. If they do that, they will satisfy India, and Mr. Gandhi will never be heard of again. It would do away with disorder in China, which is very largely due to the extreme poverty of the Chinese people. If we remonetise silver again, and allow
these poor people to have a chance, I can assure the House that the whole trade of this country and the trade of Europe would revive, and we should increase our trade with the world. On some questions the bankers were wrong early in the War. They had the "business as usual" mind in War time. At the time of the last great War loan they advised the offer of a very high interest. But the Government appealed to the Super-tax payers, and Mr. Bonar Law sent out an eloquent letter to which they made a wonderful response. That was because Mr. Bonar Law knew human nature, and if appeals of that kind had been made earlier in the War, probably we should have been able to borrow the money for the War at a much less figure. Conversion to a lower rate is something for which we hope as a result of the sound financial policy of the present Government. Nobody can deny that the vast mass of the people have far more faith in the present Government than any previous one for a long time because they believe that they are doing the right thing for the country. They did not bribe the people as did some of those before them.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): The hon. and learned Member is getting right outside the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I believe that the present Government have the confidence of the people, and we can safely entrust them to find a solution of these problems. They have to face difficulties, and these difficulties will remain as long as war debts remain. From the first we took the right course in regard to War Loans, which are largely the causes of the difficulties of maintaining the Gold Standard. We offered to cancel all these debts, but as long as people will not take goods in settlement of War Debts and War Reparations, as long as they insist upon payment in gold, there will always be a danger of a recurrence of the present crisis.

Mr. J. JONES: Protection will not stop it.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: At any rate, Protection will prevent other countries using this country as a dumping ground for their over-productions. As long as
the War Reparations and War Debts continue, as long as we do not accept the policy enunciated by the late Lord Balfour, we shall have to go on paying off these debts in gold, and if the gold keeps piling up in other countries, then there is a danger of a recurrence of the crisis. Until all these questions are cleared up, it will be necessary for the Government to have the powers asked for in these emergency Measures. I believe that we have now turned the corner, and the country is going forward once again to a state of prosperity. Already we see a reduction in the number of the unemployed. I have also great hopes in regard to the fruits of the Ottawa Conference, and when all these fiscal reforms come to pass, our taxes are reduced, and our War Debts are settled, trade is more stable, labour less subject to interruption, and employers realise their duty to the workers, and the workers realise their duty to their employers, then we shall take a great step forward once again.

Orders of the Day — TANGANYIKA AND BRITISH HONDURAS LOANS [GUARANTEE].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient—

(a) to authorise the Treasury to guarantee the payment of the principal of, and the interest on, a loan to be raised by the Government of Tanganyika not exceeding an amount sufficient to raise seven hundred and fifty thousand pounds, and to charge on the Consolidated Fund any moneys required to fulfil any such guarantee;
(b) to authorise the Treasury to advance by way of loan to the Government of British Honduras sums not exceeding in the whole three hundred and twenty-five thousand pounds, the advances to be local loans within the meaning of the National Debt and Local Loans Act, 1887;
(c) to authorise advances out of moneys provided by Parliament for the payment of such part, if any, of the annual or half-yearly charges in respect of the loans aforesaid for any of the first five years of the currency thereof as, in the opinion of the Treasury and the Secretary of State, the Government concerned are not in a
86
position to meet as and when those charges fall due."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Sir Robert Hamilton.]

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Robert Hamilton): The Committee will, no doubt, like to have a little more information in regard to this Resolution than that which is contained on the Order Paper. Hon. Members will see that the object of introducing this Resolution is to enable the Treasury to guarantee a loan up to £750,000 for Tanganyika territory, and to advance a loan to the Government of British Honduras not to exceed £325,000. It would not have been necessary to bring this proposal before the House but for the economic blizzard which has been blowing all round the world, and has affected our Colonial Empire to a very considerable extent. Tanganyika territory, for which we have been responsible since the War, has made very remarkable progress since the year 1920, when the present system of administration was organised. It is an agricultural country, and during the War it suffered very heavily from the operations which were carried out throughout the length and breadth of the land, and subsequently suffered from famine. When we took over this territory, we had to make good a great deal of damage which had been done, and we had to frame a policy of reconstruction and development. That, of course, costs money. In the early years, during the first five years, the Treasury assisted Tanganyika to the extent of £3,000,000, and Tanganyika has since then borrowed £5,000,000 more under the Palestine and East Africa Loans Act.
6.0 p.m.
During recent years the country has made remarkable progress, and I will quote a few figures to illustrate that point which, I am sure, hon. Members will appreciate. The external trade of Tanganyika in 1923 amounted to £3,500,000; in 1929, it was £11,000,000, a very remarkable increase. The revenue in 1924–25 was £1,500,000; and in 1929–30, it was £2,800,000. It will be seen that Tanganyika during those years was rapidly progressive and showing very satisfactory results in regard to the work of development which the Government were carrying out. During the later period they were able to build up a surplus balance
of £1,000,000, and also to expend a similar amount on works of capital expenditure. Unfortunately, about 1930 the price of exports began to fall. One of the chief exports of Tanganyika is sisal, and for that article they had been obtaining £32 a ton. The next year the price fell to £21 per ton, and the present price of sisal in gold is about £12 per ton. That will show hon. Members how greatly the main exports of Tanganyika have fallen in value, and, consequently, there has been a considerable fall in revenue. So much is this the case that while the estimated revenue for the current year was £1,900,000, the amount realised will be not less than 25 per cent. short of the estimated figure. The consequence is that the Government have become short of ready cash with which to carry on the business of the country. As I said just now, about £1,000,000 has been spent in works of capital development, such as the building of quarters, hospitals and asylums, telegraphs, and so on. All sorts of matters which, clearly, are rightly put to capital account, have been built up out of revenue, and now that the blizzard has struck the country and its trade has fallen, and with it the revenue has fallen, it has become necessary to strengthen the cash position of the country so that it can carry on. If this loan is made, it will be applied to paying for those capital works to which I have alluded, so that the result will be that they will be in the same position as if they had really been built up out of a loan instead of out of revenue, and the country will regain the cash that it has expended on this capital account.
It will be seen that reference is made in the White Paper to economies which have been effected, and to increased taxation. The economies have been on a very considerable scale. The programme of public works has been curtailed, and, indeed, almost brought to a standstill. There has been a reduction in military expenditure, and I am sorry to say also, but inevitably, in education expenditure; and there have been very considerable reductions in the cost of administration, which, unfortunately, but inevitably, have resulted in the retrenching of officers
whom the Service were very sorry to lose, and who have been placed in a position in which I think they will have the sympathy of all Members of the House of Commons. On the other side, namely, that of increased taxation, a nonnative poll tax has been imposed, the cost of licences has been increased, and the officials have submitted to cuts in their salaries averaging somewhere about 10 per cent., but spread over the salaries as a whole, so that the smaller salaries at the foot of the scale are less hardly hit than those at the top of the scale. In addition to this, Sir Sydney Armitage-Smith is at present out in that part of the world engaged on a thorough financial inquiry with a view to assisting the Government of Tanganyika to secure its financial position, and, if possible, make further economies. On the other side of the picture, I think we can have considerable hope for the future. As soon as prices regain something of their natural value, Tanganyika, of course, will feel the full benefit, and it is notable that even during this very severe period of stress the volume of exports, in spite of the very low prices, has been maintained.
I will now ask hon. Members to leave the Red Sea for the moment and come across the world to the Caribbean, to British Honduras. As the Committee will remember, British Honduras suffered last September from a most disastrous hurricane, but, apart from that, the Colony was beginning to suffer before then from the effects of the blizzard to which I have referred. The hurricane struck her a vital blow in her one main town of Belize. The population of British Honduras is less than 50,000, and one-third of it is concentrated in the town of Belize. To give hon. Members an idea of the damage that was done, I may say that, of 4,000 houses in that town, mostly built of wood, 3,000 were completely flattened, and the remainder were all very seriously damaged. I have seen photographs of the town after the hurricane had passed over it, and it is as though a pack of cards built up in houses had been just flattened down. It was estimated that no fewer than 1,000 lives were lost, and some 700 people were injured.
As I have said, the damage was not confined merely to material damage, but
the very life and centre of the country was struck, namely, the town in which 15,000 people out of a, total of 45,000 were living, and where all the main work of the Colony's business and government are carried on. It was so difficult to clear away the damage and remove the corpses that were underneath these ruined houses, that the Government had to resort to setting fire to some of these houses in order to avoid the dangers of pestilence and disease that might follow I should like to take this opportunity to refer to the very useful work that was done by the crews of two United States ships that were there, the "Swan" and the "Sacramento," who did all that they could to assist, as well as, of course, the officers and men of our own ship His Majesty's Ship "Danae." Whenever trouble occurs in any Colony in any part of the world, we are always glad to think that one of His Majesty's ships is on the spot very soon. Perhaps I might refer to the despatch of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in which he said how much the spirit in which the Colony had met its difficulties was appreciated.

Mr. LUNN: Will the dispatch be laid?

Sir R. HAMILTON: I have not quoted from the dispatch. It is a tradition in that part of the world, among the people who used to be known as the Bay-men, that they never gave in, whatever their difficulties were. In the old days of the Spanish wars, arid later, in the days of the French wars, whatever difficulties they were faced with, they stuck to their place in Belize. Those are the people for whom we are now asking for assistance. The manner of the assistance is referred to in the White Paper, namely, loans and grants to public authorities and mission schools. "Public authorities" means mainly the Town Board of Belize. The Town Board was getting along with considerable difficulty before, and now ruin has been brought upon the town. The streets have been broken up by water, for, after the hurricane, a great part of the town was submerged by a big wave, and to make the town at all habitable again it has been necessary to undertake very heavy expenditure. The mission schools are largely used by the Government for education, and most of them were laid low. Agricultural settlement has been reported upon 'as being extremely
desirable, for the town, though a very small one, is much congested, and agriculturists believe that a great opportunity of improving the conditions of the Colony lies in entering upon a scheme of agricultural settlement. An officer of the Colonial Office is out in that part of the world at the present time, and he reports very favourably on the prospects of a scheme of that sort.
The amount that it is proposed to borrow is £325,000 as a maximum. It is not proposed that that sum should be borrowed necessarily at one stroke, but it is proposed that the money should be raised through the Local Loans Fund, as the most convenient way of doing it, and it will be issued from time to time by the Treasury to the local Government in British Honduras. The actual currency of British Honduras is the dollar, based upon the gold American dollar, so that the money would have to be raised here in sterling and remitted to British Honduras in dollars. If there are any further questions that hon. Members wish to ask in regard to the Resolution, we shall be able, I hope, to answer them satisfactorily.

Mr. LUNN: I think the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies is a very bold man to come forward and ask for these loans from the British taxpayer at this moment. He is asking that we should guarantee a loan of £750,000 to Tanganyika and a loan of £325,000 to British Honduras. He is also suggesting to the British taxpayer that these Colonies should not be asked to pay any of the principal or any interest upon that money up to the end of the first five years. This is being done at a, time when conditions are worse in this country than they have ever been. The Under-Secretary has told us that sisal, which is the main product of Tanganyika, was sold at £32 a ton in 1929, and that, as a result of our going off gold, it is now sold at £12 a ton. In the previous Debate we heard some remarkable speeches about the condition of this country as a result of its going off gold, but, if every Colony or Protectorate is to come to the British taxpayer for help to make up its losses in this way, the British taxpayer will be milked even beyond the possibility of any product coming from him.
I realise that we have a responsibility. In 1920 we undertook the Mandate for
Tanganyika under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. In Article 3 of the Mandate we agreed to promote to the utmost the material and moral well-being and the social progress of the inhabitants of that territory. I am anxious, having had a little experience at the Colonial Office, to say and do nothing which would in any way detract from our responsibilities in regard to that territory. But I am also a representative for a constituency in this country, and I think we should have first regard for our people at home, who are suffering so much. The hon. Gentleman says that the public debt has been raised to £11,000,000 during the last few years.

Sir R. HAMILTON: The total amount so far is £8,000,000.

Mr. LUNN: I should like to ask what is the limit that Tanganyika is able to borrow, what has she already borrowed under the Palestine and East Africa Loans Act, and is this the final sum that she will be able to borrow? I should like to know a little more as to the purpose for which the money is to be used, whether it is for public works and, if so, for what kind of public works? Is it to be used for schools or for the improvement of the health services? I realise that a good deal has been done during the last few years. We have had possibly the wisest Governor in Tanganyika for the last five or six years, up to last year, that we have in the Colonial service, a man who has done a great deal and has had a very enlightened policy. I should like to know, further, if there has been any change in the native policy since Sir Donald Cameron left. I want also to know if the Labour Department has been cut down. I saw an article in "East Africa" a week or two ago dealing with what is taking place there, and bitterly complaining that the Labour Department was being cut down, that the natives were going two and three months and more without being able to get their wages and also that their conditions are not being looked after as well as they might be. I think it is due that we on this side should ask what are the native conditions, whether there is any change, and whether the Labour Department is being cut down and the interests of the natives are suffering? If
we are going to guarantee money, we have a right to ask for what purpose it is going to be used, and whether or not this Government is maintaining the conditions that were in existence up to a few months ago, or making them considerably worse than they have been for some time past under the enlightened governorship of Sir Donald Cameron.
With regard to British Honduras, the whole world was aghast at the disastrous hurricane a few months ago, with the sad loss of life and destruction of property involved. There is no doubt that the condition is far from being satisfactory as a result of what took place. There is a large amount of undeveloped land in British Honduras. Is it intended to use some of this money for developing that land and making it useful and profitable? Again, I want to know what are the labour conditions there. If we are to support proposals of this sort, we are very anxious to know that the conditions of the natives are of the best, and we should also like to know if the native policy as outlined in the White Paper in 1930 is still the policy of the Government. I also wish to know if there is any guarantee to be given as to buying British goods by either Tanganyika or British Honduras. Here is a market which should be a permanent market, and our Colonial Empire ought to be a better and a more reliable market in the purchase of British goods than any other. It is due to us to know where they buy their goods. If they are to be guaranteed loans of this character, they ought to give us a guarantee that they will buy what they need from this country.
There is another matter to which I wish to call attention. We are in a worse condition that we have ever been. The Government will provide no money for public works in this country. They have put a stop to it. Housing is not being carried out, and we have hundreds of thousands of building operatives out of work. We have cut down the allowances to the unemployed. There are 1,500,000 of our people who have had to go to the Poor Law. When we are in a condition like this, the British taxpayer is asked to pay more than £1,000,000 over to the Colonies. A case like this cannot be allowed to pass without comment, and I should like to hear what the supporters
of the Government have to say regarding it. At the same time, I am bound to say that British Honduras is in a shameful condition and needs assistance, and Tanganyika is struggling to be a star in the firmament of our Colonial possessions. While I do not oppose the Vote, I think there is good reason why we should know what is the policy of the Government towards the native races in these parts, and what they intend to do in further development work in the interest of the people living there.

Mr. LAMBERT: It is very gratifying to welcome the hon. Gentleman as an economist. I should like to think that we are getting from the Labour Benches some little support for economy. I did not notice it much in the last Parliament, but better late than never! I hope they will follow on and watch the interests of the British taxpayer, about which they seem to be concerned now. I have been trying to preach economy for 10 years without any effect, and I am glad that I am getting a few disciples. The White Paper says that Tanganyika raised a loan of £2,007,000 in 1928 and a further £3,000,000 in July, 1931. That is £5,000,000 in about four years. I should like the Government to give us some information about these various large loans. Without wanting at all to disparage Colonial development, I must really enter a protest against this constant responsibility being thrown upon the British taxpayer.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I want to make one thing perfectly clear, which, obviously, the hon. Gentleman who spoke before did not understand. As far as Tanganyika is concerned, I am not coming here to ask for any new money or for a farthing of new expenditure. The whole of the £750,000 has been spent out of revenue. What I am doing is to ask that what the late Government spent out of revneue I may now raise as a loan.

Mr. LAMBERT: That alters the complexion of affairs. I was not aware of that. I am very glad to have that explanation, and I will not attempt to pursue my argument. My hon. Friend said that they had had an economic blizzard in Tanganyika. We have had an economic blizzard in this country, and I want the right hon. Gentleman to
remember that. But, as this is merely to put right something that has been spent, I will content myself with entering some kind of protest that these loans to. Colonial territories cannot go on without-the back of the British taxpayer being broken.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I intended to rise originally to raise the same point with which the right hon. Gentleman has now dealt, and to ask if there is any new money concerned in this proposed guarantee of a loan to Tanganyika. I want to ask what exactly is the position with regard to the money that Tanganyika has borrowed in the past? Was it all originally loans in the form described here as loans in aid, and were the previous loans to put right the amounts of money that were originally given, and on what terms were those previous loans raised? One is hound to examine the requirements of Tanganyika rather differently from those of British Honduras. In the case of Tanganyika, we are dealing with a mandated territory. I was rather surprised that the hon Gentleman below me asked a question as to whether British goods alone were being dealt with. It is clear that, in a mandated territory, there can be no preference of that kind at all. Consequently, when one sees a figure of £8,000,000 borrowed in the past few years, either in the form of raising loans or of grants-in-aid, or however it may have been secured, one is inclined to ask what the money has been spent upon and what portion of it is the remunerative expenditure, what portion of it, in fact, is capital expenditure on which the Colony is earning a return? It would be very valuable if we could know what exactly has happened to this £8,000,000, and whether a large portion of it may justly be classed as capital expenditure of the kind that brings in a return. I would add that it is going to be a little difficult to understand the ability to raise a loan when there is already a deficit of over £900,000. It seems to me that there is very great reason for expecting that for the next five years there should be economy, and that they should he able to meet the interest on the loan. I am not going to oppose the guarantee, but I think that the Committee are entitled to ask what is the Government policy in
regard to increasing the expenditure in mandated territories, which, we have been told, exceeds £8,000,000.
With regard to British Honduras, the position is very much simpler. I do not think that there will be any desire on the part of Members of the Committee to question the desirability of giving this money. One realises that it is a small Colony very closely associated with the Mother Country, and that it has suffered from a very exceptional disaster. The amount of money which is required is not in the ordinary sense very large, yet it is large when one has to consider the question of economy. The only question I would ask is, whether there is, in fact, a possibility, even after five years of the guarantee, of the charge of £16,000, or whatever it is, every year in interest, plus the repayment of a portion of the loan, being met. It is well that the Committee should face quite frankly these various loans and the circumstances in which they are given. Here is a sum of only £325,000, but are the resources of the Colony such as to enable it, within the period of 40 years, to repay the amount, plus whatever other loans it has, and to find, even after the first five years, the interest of £15,000 or £16,000, or whatever it may be?
I am glad that the Money Resolution does not insist that charges on these loans shall rank ahead of everything else. That is the sort of thing to which I objected in the case of Mauritius, because I thought that it was putting an undue burden upon the colony. The Financial Memorandum states that it takes priority over any charges not existing at the date of the passing of the Bill. I ask the Colonial Office whether they are seriously considering that such a regulation may not make the actual carrying on of the Colony extraordinarily difficult in the future? Their resources cannot be very large. I should be glad to know if that point of view has been considered, and whether in passing the Money Resolution the Committee may feel satisfied that the money will really enable the colony to be put upon its feet, at any rate, from the point of view of the disaster of last year, and also enable it to carry on in the near future along the road towards prosperity?

Captain PETER MACDONALD: The hon. Member in introducing the Resolution spoke of the matter in a very favourable light, but I am bound to say that I look upon the position with very grave disquiet. In his statement he said that the gross receipts of Tanganyika since 1919–20 were something like £21,000,000, and that the gross expenditure was £20,000,000. On the face of it that sounds a very favourable report, but how is the £20,000,000 gross expenditure arrived at? Hon. Members will find on examining the position that £15,500,000 was raised by taxation from within the territory. That, in itself, is all right.

Sir R. HAMILTON: I did not quote those figures.

Captain MACDONALD: The hon. Member did not state how those gross receipts were obtained, and I am telling him and the Committee. As I was saying, £15,500,000 was raised by taxation in the Colony. £2,000,000 was raised by loan outside Great Britain and guaranteed by Great Britain. £3,500,000 was raised from the Imperial Government, and of this sum a little over £2,000,000 was devoted to capital expenditure in respect of which interest and sinking fund have been paid. A sum of £408,109 was a grant-in-aid, and £1,750,000 was a loan granted free of interest, the question of repayment to be considered in 1933. If hon. and right hon. Members consider that that is a favourable report, I am afraid that I must differ from them. The financial position of Tanganyika at the present time is very serious indeed. They have been on the dole ever since 1919. There has not been a year since 1919–20 when that Government have balanced their Budget. They have carried on by means of grants-in-aid from the home govermnent, or by loans. At a time of very serious financial depression in this country, when the home Government are obliged to make severe cuts in expenditure, it is a serious thing to be called upon, as they are being called upon practically every week, to guarantee loans or to give grants-in-aid to mandated territories or to colonies. When the home Government are faced with a deficit in their Budget they do not go to other countries to borrow money to balance the Budget. They face up to the situation and by economies and increased taxation manage to balance their
Budget. Is it asking too much of our colonies, and particularly of our mandated territories, which are entrusted to us, that they should do what we have to do? If we are going to encourage mandated territories and colonies to go on year after year upon the present system of finance, where is it going to end? I am also concerned because of the fact that the loans have no relation whatever to markets in this country.
The hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) asked what this country was getting in return for those loans in the way of markets? Tanganyika last year imported from the whole of the British Empire only 60 per cent. of her total imports, 42 per cent. of which was obtained from the United Kingdom. I do not consider that to be a fair proportion of imports to come from the Empire, and certainly not from the United Kingdom, to whom she always appeals when in financial difficulties. Not only does she come to the Colonial Office for loans and grants-in-aid, but she has had grants-in-aid and loans from the Colonial Development Fund and also from the Empire Marketing Board. The May Committee in their report referring to Colonial Development Fund Loans to these mandated territories said:
On reviewing the schemes which have so far been assisted we find that in a fair number of them the element of benefit to the trade and industry of this country which is an essential condition of advances under the Act, is somewhat remote. Under existing financial conditions this country cannot afford to adopt a policy of mere subsidy by relieving the local government of its obligation to provide a decent and reasonable standard of administration in the matter of public health, housing, transport, etc., nor yet a policy of developments which will bring no appreciable benefit to this country for a long time ahead.
That has been borne out by the facts. The central Government of Tanganyika should follow the example of some of the native Governments. The Colonial Office report on Tanganyika for 1930 said:
Although the general economic depression was reflected in the case of many Native Administrations by a short fall in the revenue for which they had budgeted, they adapted themselves to the circumstances, and were in a sound financial position at the end of the year.
Those are the native administrations of Tanganyika. I commend that policy to the central administration, because it is obvious that they cannot go on indefi-
nitely in the way they have in the last 10 or 12 years by borrowing and appealing for grants-in-aid in order to balance their Budgets.
I have very little to say with regard to British Honduras. The sum of money is a loan to make good the ravages of the hurricane which took place there a short time ago. Anybody who has witnessed the results of a hurricane in any of the West Indian Islands, as I have, cannot help feeling sympathy for any people who have had to undergo those awful calamities. As part of this loan is for rebuilding purposes, I hope that it will be emphasised that when new houses are built, they will be made a little more durable than has been the case in the past. I visited one of the West Indian Islands shortly after a hurricane two years ago, and I found that most of the natives, instead of putting up more substantial hutments or homes, were shoving up mere bivouacs, which, if another hurricane came, would not he seen again. If money is to be granted as loans to rebuild the ravages of a hurricane, I would suggest, even though it might mean an increase of the loan, that it would be far better that they should build well. I know that this particular Colony was always considered to he outside the hurricane belt, but what I have seen of the West Indian Colonies it is very hard to say what Colony might be ravaged next as a result of a hurricane.
The same question arises here as was asked by the hon. Member for Rothwell, namely, what do you expect to get in return? If one looks at the trade returns, one sees that only 13 per cent. of the imports of the Island of British Honduras came from Great Britain last year, whereas over 34 per cent. came from the United States of America. The same sort of thing applies to practically every British Colony. I was very glad to hear the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day, and I hope that it was the forerunner of a new policy in the administration of British Colonies. Up to now the administration of British Colonies has been lamentable. Loans and gold have been handed out without any relation whatever to any market which this country might obtain as a result of such loans or grants. The West Indian Islands were encouraged to grow sugar, and at the same time we were pur-
chasing sugar in this country from the Dutch East Indies, Cuba, Porto Rica, and from every Colony but our own.
I hope that as a result of the statement which was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day this state of things may be remedied. I hope that in future in respect to any loans that may be made to British Colonies, there will be a Clause laying it down that any expenditure incurred as a result of the loans will be expended in this country. If we pursue that policy in the future, I can foresee some return for all this vast expenditure that has been poured out of the British Exchequer to British Colonies and mandated territories in the past, but if we do not pursue that policy, there will be no hope of these Colonies facing up to realities, and trying to balance their Budgets, as any sane Government that wishes to have sound finance would do.

Earl WINTERTON: I should like to say a few words about British Honduras, and in some respects to answer what has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain Macdonald). In the first place, I should like to pay a tribute, which I understand has already been done by the Minister, which will be supported by every hon. Member, to whatever party he belongs, to the magnificent example of courage, self-sacrifice and, above all, regard for law and order which was shown by the people of one of our oldest Colonies in a time of unparalleled disaster, when the strain upon individuals must have been almost too terrible to contemplate. Hon. Members may have read the most interesting and vivid account by a former Governor of the Colony, which appeared in a well known review, showing the great fortitude which was displayed by the people.
On these grounds, although they may be mainly sentimental, the Committee will be anxious to help the people of British Honduras, but the matter goes much further than that. There are two Colonies, and two Colonies only, under the British flag in the Continent of South America—British Guiana and British Honduras. It would not be in order to deal with British Guiana on this Bill, but it may be useful to observe that for many years past both these Colonies
have been described as the Cinderellas of British Colonies. Although British Honduras and British Guiana possess immense resources, for one reason or other they have not advanced in an economic sense in the same way as the West Indian Colonies, even though in the West Indian Colonies there have been periods of great depression. It would not be in order to go into the main reasons for that fact, but it is useful when we are discussing this loan to say a few words about the question of the development of British Honduras. Under the terms of the loan, among the other purposes to which the money is to be applied, is that of agricultural settlement. I did not hear the Minister's speech, but I understand that he did not say anything on that point. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies will say something in regard to it.
I hope that a proportion of the money, or as large a proportion as can be spared, will be used for reproductive purposes and not merely for replacement purposes; not merely for replacing houses and other buildings which have been destroyed. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight that it would be desirable, if it can be done and can be afforded, to put up a more substantial type of building than that which has hitherto existed. I hope that a portion of the money—one is encouraged to believe that it will be so. according to the White Paper—will be used for agricultural settlement. It might be worth while, when times are a little better and it is possible to afford the money, for the Government to send out an official committee to inquire into what could be done to develop British Honduras and the neighbouring Colony of British Guiana. I have spoken, as others have spoken, with American citizens, well disposed to this country, and they have expressed astonishment at the backwardness of British Honduras. They have been inclined to blame this country.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight says that only 13 per cent. of the total imports of manufactured goods into British Honduras are of British origin. He might, however, have regard to two facts in that connection, (1) the element of propinquity,
because British Honduras is much nearer to the American Continent and is well within the ambit of American business, and (2) it has been the policy of the United States of America, of France and many other countries with Colonial territories to do everything possible to develop their Colonies by giving them a large preference for their goods in their markets, whereas it is only in very recent years, in fact it was not until the recent Act was passed, that anything has been done by this country in that direction.

Mr. LAMBERT: What has that to do with this loan?

Earl WINTERTON: It has a great deal to do with the loan. I understand that one of the points is that the loan of this money will eventually assist us. My argument was directed to show that under the system now in operation as a result of the Imports Act, the development of a, Colony like British Honduras in the way of agricultural settlement will eventually benefit us materially. In the old days before the War, when loans of this character came up and we pleaded for a system of reciprocal trade between this country and the country to whom the loan was being made, we were greeted almost with jeers. It is our long neglect of the situation which has led to the unfortunate position of British Honduras and of many other Colonies to-day. Therefore, I am glad that a portion of the money that we are lending to British Honduras will be used in a way which will benefit us as well as that Colony. But even if we got no return, we are really only paying a debt which we owe for past neglect.
It is not fair to put the matter merely on a monetary basis and to say that we have lent money in the past. What have we done in the past to assist their economic development? We have now taken a step, and I suggest, with all respect, now that we have a new imperial economic system, that this is the time when we may look with complete favour on proposals to assist British Colonies with loans. My only reason for rising was to refer to British Honduras and to express the sympathy which I and everyone feels with that Colony. Speaking for myself and for many other hon. Members I wish that hard-pressed people more prosperity and good fortune than they have had in the immediate past and
to say that we, their fellow subjects here, will watch their future with interest and with the hope that they are going to make that Colony the prosperous place that it ought to be.

Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTER: We have had a very interesting Debate, but, if I may respectfully say so, some of the speeches would have been more relevant and more in order had I come forward to ask for a guarantee of a loan for new expenditure in Tanganyika, instead of merely to repay expenditure which has taken place in the past out of income account and which ought to have come out of capital account. If it had come out of capital account it would have had to be paid for by a, loan. All that we ask is to be able to repay to income account the money which was raided in order to make this capital expenditure. If I were asking the Committee for a guarantee for new expenditure in Tanganyika, I should require to be very well satisfied, not only that such expenditure could be adequately secured, but that it would be reasonably remunerative. It would not be in order on this loan to deal with that matter.
I give this clear undertaking to the Committee, that I think it is right in any development expenditure which takes place to see that that development expenditure is related to some probable market in this country. I do not think we should be limited in using our credit, where we can use it wisely in the development of the Colonial Empire, but I do think that all development expenditure should be related to the probability of getting a market in this country particularly, and also markets in other parts of the Empire. No discussion on that subject, however, is relevant to the particular proposal now before us, which is merely to repay to income account money in respect of something which has been done in the past. It is good business from the point of view of the Treasury and the taxpayer that we should do that. This is not a case of asking the Treasury to assume some new liability. On the contrary, the result would be that if we did not raise this loan there would be no unexpended balance which this mandated territory could use in its forthcoming budget, and the result would be
that it would come upon the Treasury for a grant-in-aid. It is, therefore, much sounder finance from our point of view that we should repay this money to the income account in order that the cash balance of the territory may be restored to what I hope will be adequate for its needs. That disposes of the point raised by the right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert).
I do not need to go into elaborate details in regard to the works for which the money was originally required, because I think the hon. Member for the Rothwell Division (Mr. Lunn) was very well satisfield about it at the time, but I think that with regard to this past expenditure a sum of £3,000,000 was for what I would call repairing the aftermath of war. That was expenditure which was financed by Treasury grants. The balance of £5,000,000 was sanctioned by this House at the time for ports, harbours, railways and other transport facilities. It is not quite fair for the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight to say that this mandated territory—I am now defending something for which I was not responsible—engaged in lavish expenditure quite irrespective of whether or not it could balance its budget. That is not so. From 1925 up to 1931 the mandated territory always balanced its budget. I think I am right in saying that.

Captain MACDONALD: How did it do it? By raising loans.

7.0 p.m.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, That is untrue. I hope the hon. and gallant Member will not make statements which he cannot substantiate. As I understand it, the local government did not borrow for current expenditure. They did borrow this £5,000,000, but that was for capital expenditure for new development. The ordinary Budget expenditure of the Services of the country was defrayed out of income. I think I am right in saying—I may be mistaken, and, if so, it can be corrected at a later stage of the Bill—that from 1925 up to 1931 this Territory was, in fact, balancing its Budget. Indeed, that was why it had a surplus balance, out of which the hon. Gentleman opposite got the £750,000. It not only balanced its Budget, but was able to get from the cash balance
£1,100,000 to spend on capital development. That is a rather better position than the hon. Gentleman led the House to believe.
With regard to native administration, we have to economise all along the line, and you cannot leave one Department alone. There is no change in the policy or in the general intention. In everything we must cut our cloth according to our measure. In order to ensure that the financial resources of this Territory are as wisely husbanded as possible, and that we get economy—by that I mean both saving where we can and seeing that we get full value for our money, as economy includes both—I have arranged with the Chancellor that Sir Sydney Armitage-Smith should go out to the Territory. He is now on his way there and he is to make a full report on the finances of Tanganyika. The right bon. Gentleman said he hoped that these territories were going to "buy British." I am glad to find a supporter for my peculiar cliché. Tanganyika, as he knows, cannot give a preference since it is a mandated territory, but it does give a voluntary preference, and in the case of all the Government orders, which are placed on Government account, are placed with British firms and shipped in British ships so that the maximum that can be done is being done. As regards the preference given by British Honduras, which by the way the hon. and gallant Gentleman called an island, it is true it has had this unfortunate inundation, but it is not yet entirely separated from the land.

Captain P. MACDONALD: It is part of the West Indies group of islands.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not see how it can be part of the West Indies group of islands when it is part of the continent of America.

Sir REGINALD BANKS: Is it not the duty of the Secretary of State, when he finds any colony to be an island, to notify His Majesty?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I believe that is correct. Unfortunately, I have not to move in that respect. With reference to this main land dependency, it is a little hard that he asks why they cannot do something for British goods. I believe that British Honduras gives a 50 per cent. preference to this country, certainly, a considerable preference.

Captain P. MACDONALD: I did not ask why this main land dependency did not buy more British goods. What I said was that they only bought 13 per cent. of British goods last year, and that there was great scope for British development in that respect. I was not blaming them.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Committee rather understood him to say, "Why do you ask for money for this island when they do not buy more British goods?" I understand him now to say that he hopes that this country will in future make better use of the opportunity offered by British Honduras, offered not recently, but for many years. One hon. Gentleman put to me a question as to whether the colony would be able to repay this loan. I think that in spite of the disaster they sustained, the future is not without hope particularly under the new dispensation. It is important that this money should be spent not simply on domestic reconstruction but on economic development as well, and it will be so spent. You have to get the houses rebuilt, but there is going to be this land settlement, and there is a proposal, too, that the chief company in the colony, which runs the saw mills and mahogany logging industry, should be lent money on proper security for reconstruction. There is a real hope that, instead of sending that mahogany as lumber to America, as happened in the past, now that we have this 10 per cent. preference they will get a sawmill established there so that the mahogany may be sawn there and brought into this country as sawn timber instead of its passing to America as lumber. There really is the hope of the development of a prosperous industry in this way.

Earl WINTERTON: Does the land settlement apply to existing inhabitants in British Honduras or to people outside?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE - LISTER: At present, it is intended for existing inhabitants. I do not think there will be enough money to do a lot. I cannot speak as to the future, but at present certainly it is confined to the existing inhabitants. As regards agricultural development, the island produces the very best type of grape-fruit. They had the wisdom to get the best and are growing it with great success. They may also be
able, too, to grow other vegetable crops, such as tomatoes. They are also cultivating a tree there which produces a very valuable nut, since, if you can crush the nut without breaking the kernel, you get. one of the most valuable oils in the world. I have also anticipated the advice my hon. Friend gave me to get someone on the spot who would be able to advise the local government in their agricultural development. Mr. Stockdale has had a wide experience in all these agricultural problems and, when I knew we were likely to pursue this policy in the West Indies, I thought it would be well to have Mr. Stockdale on the spot to give the authorities advice as to how best to pursue that policy. I think I have now answered all the questions raised in this interesting Debate.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I only wish to draw the attention of the Committee to two facts. I have been really shocked in the Debate by two speeches. One was that of the noble Lord the Member for West Sussex (Earl Winterton) who recommended a committee of inquiry. He was going back to the days of two years ago when every mugwump wanted a committee of inquiry. I hope the noble Lord will not go sliding back into mugwumpery and want the Government to do this sort of thing. The second was the speech of the Secretary of State far the Colonies, who came smiling down to the Committee within six months of the election and recommended borrowing. I realise that the position of some of these Colonies and Dominions is very bad at present, but, when we cannot borrow money for things we want in this country, as a matter of common fairness, I hope that the Minister will resist these demands and will impress upon the Dominions, and on the Mandated Territories particularly, that they should endeavour in every possible way to put their finances on the same sound financial basis as this country. I do not blame him for the position in which he is, but I was shocked to find him to-day wanting to borrow money. I realise that, if it were not for the efficiency of his administration in the last few months, things would be far worse, but in a year's time the House will not be in a frame of mind to advance money to any Dominion or Colony. Although I do not oppose the
grant, I think it is a, pity that the Government should come to the House for this grant at the present time.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 (Provisions as to the Supreme Court), 2 (Amendment as to resealing in Northern Ireland of English probate grants), 3 (Provisions as to consolidation), and 5 (Provision as to office of Land Purchase Commissioner) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 6.—(Provisions as to priority in bankruptcy, etc., of Crown debts and certain debts due to Trustee Savings Banks.)

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I beg to move, in page 3, line 23, at the beginning, to insert the words:
[(1) Notwithstanding any restrictions imposed by the principal Act on the power of the Parliament of Northern Ireland to make laws, that Parliament may, with the consent of the Treasury—

(1) regulate and restrict the priority which is to be given to Crown debts in the distribution of the property of a bankrupt, arranging debtor or person dying insolvent; and
(2) determine the priority, if any, to be given in the distribution of such property as aforesaid to the debts mentioned in section fourteen of the Trustee Savings Banks Act, 1863.]

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: What is the meaning of this new Sub-section? It is generally useful to give the Committee a short explanation.

Mr. STANLEY: I did not give any explanation, because I thought the hon. Member realised that the necessity for making this Amendment was due entirely to Parliamentary procedure. Owing to the fact that it was thought that this part of Clause 6 raised a question of privilege,
it was, as the hon. Member will see, enclosed in brackets and, technically speaking, is not in the Bill until it is moved in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Clauses 8 (Application of c. 9 of 3 & 4 Geo. 5 to Northern. Ireland), 9 (Provisions as to sea and tidal waters, the seashore, etc.), and 10 (Short title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Reciprocal pension arrangements between Northern Ireland and other parts of His Majesty's Dominions.)

4.—(1) If reciprocal arrangements are in force between Great Britain and Northern Ireland under and for the purposes of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts, 1925 to 1931, and the corresponding enactments of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, the National Health Insurance Joint Committee constituted under section eighty-eight of the National Health Insurance Act, 1924, on application being made by the Government of Northern Ireland, and with the approval of the Secretary of State, may make reciprocal arrangements to take effect between the Northern Ireland authority administering the said corresponding enactments and the authority administering a similar pensions' scheme in another country, whereby—

(a) periods of insurance, contributions paid, and residence, in one country shall, for the purpose of qualification for pensions in the other country, be treated as if they had been periods of insurance, contributions paid, and residence, in that other country;
(b) pensions payable by one country shall be payable to persons whilst resident in the other country; and
(c) financial adjustments may be made between one country and the other country.

(2) For the purposes of this section, the expression "country" means, on the one hand, Northern. Ireland, and on the other hand, any country other than Northern Ireland, with which reciprocal arrangements made under section. thirty-three of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, are in force, and the expression "similar pensions' scheme" means a scheme established in any such country other than Northern. Ireland, and being the subject of the last-mentioned reciprocal arrangements.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Brought up, and read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Repeal of s. 7 of 54 & 55 Vict. c. 66 and of para. (8) of s. 44 of 7 & 8 Geo. 5. c. 64).

Section seven of the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891, and paragraph (8) of Section forty-four of the, Representation of the People Act, 1918 (which provide for certain increases of salary to Clerks of the Crown and Peace), are hereby repealed:

Provided that this repeal shall not affect any Clerk of the Crown and Peace who is an existing officer within the meaning of Section fifty-eight of the principal Act.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Brought up, and read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered.

King's Consent signified.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Orders of the Day — DANGEROUS DRUGS BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. O. STANLEY: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The reason for the introduction of this Bill is to enable His Majesty's Government to ratify a Convention which took place at Geneva this summer. The House will know that this country has always been to the front in attempting to regulate the traffic in dangerous drugs. During last summer a largely-attended conference was held at Geneva to discuss the question. The scheme for regulation which was proposed by His Majesty's Government was, as a matter of fact, not accepted by the conference, and we were bound to point out that, in our view, the scheme which finally formed the basis of the Convention had a certain defect and would present difficulties in practice. Even so, we acknowledged that the scheme was an advance on the present position, and we therefore became one of the signatories to the Convention. To enable us to ratify that Convention, it is necessary to make certain minor Amendments of the existing law. To a large extent, we shall be enabled to put the Convention
into force under the existing Dangerous Drugs Act, but there are two main particulars in which it may he necessary to make an alteration. The first is in regard to certain derivatives of opium which are not habit-forming drugs in themselves, but are capable of easily being converted into such. In accordance with the Convention it is necessary to take power to deal with them.
The two drugs which are mainly concerned are commonly known as codeine and dionin, although they will probably be more familiar to hon. Members under their more scientific name as methyl-morphine and ethylmorphine. The House will realise that we include, with these drugs, their respective salts. They are not in themselves drugs of addiction, although they are capable of being converted into such drugs. They are drugs of a useful character which are more and more generally being used as substitutes for more dangerous drugs in medical preparations. Although we find it necessary under the Convention to have some control over them, we do not want to establish a control of such rigidity as would interfere with their proper purpose and use. We intend, therefore, under Sub-section (3) of Clause 2 to extend Part III of the Dangerous Drugs Act to them and control the process of manufacture of those two drugs, with this alteration, that we are enabled, in the Order which brings this extension into force, to make certain modifications, and to make, therefore, in the case of these two drugs, a less rigid control than is usual under Part III. It will be found that, when we bring this control into force, it will affect neither the retail trade nor the use of these drugs by medical practitioners. I feel sure that it will not interfere in any way with legitimate retail trade in these drugs.
The other alteration that has to be made is in regard to certain new derivatives of opium or the coca leaf, which may be invented or found in years to come. We have had the difficulty up to now that we have not been able to deal with new inventions. The scheme as proposed under Clause 2, Sub-sections (1) and (2) of this Bill is as follows: First of all, you should start from a complete ban on the trade or manufacture of any such new derivatives. The next step is that this new-found drug
should be submitted to the League of Nations for their report as to whether it is a drug of addiction or a drug which is capable of being converted into one. If it is found that this new drug has no medical or scientific value, then the ban is not lifted. If it is found that the drug is of medical or scientific value, then the ban is lifted. If the League of Nations find that it is a drug of addiction, then we bring into operation Part III of the principal Act. If they find that it is not a drug of addiction but capable of being converted into one, then we are entitled to use the same procedure as I have already detailed to the House in the case of the other two drugs.
Finally, as to the date at which this Bill is to come into force. It is to be brought into operation by Order-in-Council, the necessity for that being that this Convention will not come into force until it is ratified by 25 of the signatories including at least four of the main manufacturing countries, and it is necessary therefore, to retain a discretion as to when it shall come into force.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I rise to utter one or two sentences. As far as we on this side of the House are concerned we give our blessing to the Bill. We think it a very necessary Measure. Whenever the Government take an international line on any subject, we are inclined to support them.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: I know very well that this Bill is wanted and that we have only four minutes in which to discuss it, but I want to ask a question in respect of its application. Has it the consent of the Veterinary Surgeons, of the British Medical Association, or of the Society of Pharmacists of Great Britain and Ireland? These are the three bodies that are mainly and most intensely interested in what is being done in regard to drugs. In respect of the application of it, have these three great national bodies been consulted and have they given their agreement to its provisions?

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I only want to say one word, and that is to warn the Minister that, although I accept this Bill as a whole quite readily, when we get to the Committee stage I may wish to omit
one or two of the words in paragraph (g) of Clause 1.

Mr. STANLEY: The Convention which this Bill is intended to ratify was concluded in the summer. It has been laid before Parliament and forms the subject of a White Paper which is well known to the bodies interested, and, in view of the fact that we have received no representations against it, I think we can conclude that the Bill is agreed to.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Orders of the Day — DESTRUCTIVE IMPORTED ANIMALS [MONEY].

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for prohibiting or controlling the importation into and the keeping within Great Britain of destructive non-indigenous animals, for exterminating any such animals which may be at large, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred under the said Act by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Secretary of State for Scotland, or the Department of Agriculture for Scotland.

Orders of the Day — DESTRUCTIVE IMPORTED ANIMALS BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Clause 1 (Power to prohibit or control the importation or keeping of musk rats) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Power to make regulations and prescribe form, of licences.)

Amendment made: In page 2, line 23, at the beginning, insert the words:
(c) with the approval of the Treasury, prescribe the fees to be charged in respect of the grant of or renewal of such licences."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

CLAUSE 3.—(Grants and revocation of licences.)

Amendment made: In page 2, line 28, at the beginning, insert the words:
(a) upon payment by an applicant of the prescribed fee."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

Clause 4 (Power of inspection) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Provisions as to musk rats found at large.)

Amendment made: In page 3, line 25, after the word "and," insert the words:
at the expense of the departinent."— [Sir J. Gilmour.]

It being half-past Seven of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE BUSINESS.

KETTERING GAS BILL (By Order).

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
7.30 p.m.
I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Sir W. Jenkins) is not able to be present to move this Amendment, because he would probably have had something to say regarding the way in which the Bill would affect several of the districts within his Division. I wish at the outset to criticise the action of the National Gas Council of Great Britain and Ireland. They have circularised the Members of this House, and in what I think is very bad taste they have questioned the right of Members of this House to pay any regard to requests that are made to them from time to time in
the best interests of public life, as to the way in which local authorities should carry out their duty. If we regarded this circular we must not comply with any request made by a local authority or take any step which transgresses against what the National Gas Council considers to be a regulation.

Mr. CLARRY: What are the exact words to which the hon. and gallant Member objects?

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I object to the first paragraph of the circular. The hon. Member can read the circular. I object to its tone and language right through. It is an attempt to browbeat Members of this House, when we are simply exercising our rights to examine any private Bill before it is sent upstairs. Let hon. Members look at the circular and they will find substantial ground for the complaint that I am making. I speak on behalf of one of the biggest urban district councils in Great Britain, the Rhondda Urban District Council. They have made a demand of us who have been sent here as their elected representatives.

Mr. CLARRY: Their elected representatives?

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Yes.

Mr. CLARRY: I should have thought that the constituency elected the hon. and gallant Member and not an urban district council.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I have been elected as a representative of Rhondda, just as the members of the Rhondda Urban District Council have been elected, by the same ratepayers, and I am asked to take some part in protesting against the Second Reading of this Bill. The National Gas Council has exceeded the bounds of decency. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Yes they have. They are attempting to dictate to Members of this House how they shall carry out their duty, and they try to defend their action by saying that the Incorporated Municipal Electrical Association is at the root of the action taken by Members who object to this Bill. As far as I am concerned it is nothing of the kind that has actuated me, because I have received no communication whatever from that source. I resent the imputation and the accusation made in
this circular. The urban authorities of Pontypridd and Rhondda and Neath object to the Bill.
I am clearly of opinion that Clauses 5 and 6 ought not to be considered. This is an attempt on the part of a private company to land themselves on a pitch which has already cost the ratepayers a good deal of money. It has been acquired as a site for building by the Kettering Urban District Council, which owns electricity works. That Council almost unanimously, at any rate by a majority made up of Labour, Co-operators, Conservatives and Liberals and one Independent, passed a Resolution with regard to the Council's housing estate and houses. That estate has been purchased with the ratepayers' money. The Council passed a resolution that so far as these housing sites and the houses owned by the council were concerned, the rule would be that only electricity should be used for lighting, heating and other purposes. This decision aroused the antagonism of the local gas company, which stands for private enterprise, and the company is calling upon all the powers to assist them with the view of preventing the local authority doing what is thought to be best in the interests of the ratepayers.

Mr. LEWIS: Has the hon. and gallant Member got the terms of the resolution to which he refers? Does it specifically say that only electricity shall be supplied to these houses, and that gas shall not be supplied?

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I am not the local Member, but he is here, and perhaps the hon. Member will refer to him. The resolution affects the houses and the estate of the municipal authority alone.

Mr. LEWIS: I wanted to know the terms of the resolution.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I have simply been supplied with the facts by my own local authority. They think that a new principle is being introduced and that it is not in the best interests of local authorities that Clauses 5 and 6 of this Bill should be discussed upstairs. I hope that the demand of the Gas Company will be rejected and that no step will be taken by this House to grant a condition which must impose a burden on
the urban authorities. [HON. MEMBERS: "why?"] Because a very large amount of the ratepayers' money has been spent. Anyone who has taken any part in the provision of electric light can understand the worry and the anxiety of the local authority in this matter. I have some slight knowledge regarding the expense of breaking up the streets. It is said that a gas company will pay for the making up of the streets if it has to break into them. I am Chairman of the Rhondda Roads and Bridges Committee. We have several times had the gas company breaking up our roads, and we have found, when a disturbed road has been made up that in 18 months or two years it has to be resurfaced, whereas if undisturbed it would have lasted several years. I hope that this condition will not be imposed upon the Kettering urban authority. They are not afraid of competition. They do not want to be placed in a sheltered position, but, as far as their own property is concerned, where they are going to provide all the modern amenities that are possible, they ask to be allowed to be masters in their own house.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether the municipality, if left to itself, proposes to supply gas as well as electricity?

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: As far as I understand the matter, they do not. This Resolution, of which I have already spoken, is quite clear. They have already established an electricity concern, and they intend to supply the new houses which they are going to build themselves on these sites in that way.

Mr. McENTEE: I beg to second the Amendment.
I have been for a number of years a member of an urban district council, now a borough council, where we have had an experience similar to that which, apparently, is now being had by the Kettering Urban District Council. We own an electricity undertaking, and we built some 1,300 or 1,400 houses. We had experience of both gas and electricity, and because of that experience we are now supplying our houses with electricity from our own undertaking. Apparently, the Kettering authority now propose to supply their houses from their own undertaking. It is also the case
that the authority of which I am a member is supplying electricity at the same price as that which is being charged by the Kettering Urban Council. In the early days of our building scheme we had. as I say, experience of gas in connection with a great many of our houses. In some cases we had gas for all purposes. In other cases we had it for cooking and for power, that is, for heating irons and that kind of thing. Our experience led us to the view that when gas was put in after the houses had been built the roads were broken up, and although the gas company made good the damage, as they were compelled to do, they did so in such a way that it became necessary to resurface the roads within a very short period. In all cases where roads are broken up in that way, that, in my experience, is always the result.
In addition to that consideration we found that the gas company put their pipes under the boards and ran them up the walls of the houses. The gas pipe is generally a cheap miserable-looking pipe, very far from being in any sense beautiful or artistic, and the effect was to destroy the whole appearance of a room. The pipes were not put in any kind of casing. Then I do not think it will be denied that the cost of the maintenance of the houses afterwards, as far as decoration is concerned, is approximately doubled by the introduction of gas as against electricity. Up to last year I lived in a house—doubtless many other hon. Members have had the same experience—where we had electricity for lighting, and gas for heating and cooking. In earlier days I have had gas for lighting, heating and cooking, and I have also had gas for lighting only, with ordinary coal for heating and cooking. With all this experience I say, and I do not think that anybody will dispute my statement, that the decoration of a house which is lit with electricity will cost less than half the amount involved in the decoration of a house which is lit by gas.
That is a serious consideration for the local authority which has to bear that cost, particularly as no local authority to-day which owns houses or is building under any of the Housing Acts is able to maintain the houses out of the amounts allowed by the Ministry. That is one of the problems which housing authorities have to face. In addition, in the case
of the modern houses built under the more recent Acts, the cost of maintenance is a very serious problem for local authorities. It seems extraordinary to me that hon. Members opposite who are so keen about the rights of property owners as a, general rule, should argue that a local authority which happens to be a property owner ought not to possess the rights accorded to other property owners. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Private property owners possess and exercise the right to say whether electricity or gas is to be allowed in their houses. I can give examples of that from my own area. Many property owners exercise that right in a way which I think is not the way in which it ought to be exercised in the interests of the tenant. However that may be, the fact remains that they have that right and exercise it.
If we concede that right to private property owners why should we refuse it to the Kettering Urban District Council or any other district council? The Kettering Council has built these houses, and is probably subsidising them out of the local rates. They have also established a local electricity undertaking. The houses and the electricity undertaking are owned and have been paid for by the local ratepayers, and the local ratepayers have the right to determine just as private property owners would determine, how they shall manage their property, and what they shall allow as far as the tenancy of that property is concerned. I say unhesitatingly that if this were in the district which I represent, where we own our electricity undertaking and also own houses, we would claim and I think we would be entitled to exactly the same right as that which is being exercised by property owners in that area at the present time. There are property owners—many of them—there who have refused the requests of tenants for the installation of electricity in their houses. We have, on many occasions, conducted canvasses for the purpose of finding out how many tenants desired to have electricity installed for lighting only, and we found a considerable proportion of them were anxious to have it, but when they approached the landlords they were told that the installation of electricity would not be permitted.
The reasons given for this refusal were various, but the reason which appealed
to me more than any other was that the installation meant interference with the structure of the house. It was said that however well the job might be done, parts of the house would have to be pulled apart, nails would have to be driven into walls, and the value of the property would deteriorate. That may or may not be the case, but the reason appears to me to offer, at least some justification, for the refusal. If that be so as regards electricity, then I assert positively that that reason applies with infinitely greater strength to the installation of gas. Where electricity is installed, the wires are covered with a casing, which is not, at any rate, as inartistic as the ordinary gas-pipes.
Apart from these considerations, however, there is the principle of the right of the local authority to exercise care of its property which is given to every private owner of property. Why should not the ratepayers of Kettering or Waltham-stow or any other town, if they build houses, have the right to use their own judgment as to who shall occupy those houses and the conditions under which they shall be occupied? There is not, I venture to say, a single Member here who, if he owned house property, would not desire and would not get in law the right to determine who should occupy those houses and the conditions of tenancy. If such an owner desired that neither gas nor electricity should be installed in the houses, he would have a perfect right in law to make that condition. If he desired that only gas and not electricity should be installed, he would have a right in law to make that condition, and I can give numerous instances to show that that is the case. Why then should a local authority be deprived of a right which is granted to every private owner? On those grounds I hope that the Bill will not be given a Second Reading.
There is also the question of a matter of vital principle like this being introduced in a Private Bill by an organisation of property owners who have only a personal economic interest in the matter. They are only concerned with profits. They are not concerned at all with the well-being of the tenants in any sense. They are concerned with the opportunity for their company to make
a profit out of the residents in the council houses.

Mr. LEWIS: The hon. Member has referred to the effect upon the decorations of the houses of gas as against electric light. May I ask him whether these council houses are to be provided with electric fires and electric cooking ranges, or open coal fires and ordinary ranges which burn coal?

Mr. McENTEE: I am dealing with a matter which is within my own experience and the experience of the council of which I have been a Member for 12 years.

Mr. LEWIS: I refer to this council.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: I am trying to answer the hon. Member's question if he will allow me. I am speaking of what is, I believe, the unanimous opinion of the council of which I am still a member, with an experience in every way similar to that of Kettering, and I say without any hesitation that the cost of decorating, in the town in which I live, and of whose council I have been a member for 12 years, in any houses that are lit by gas, would be double what it is in the case of houses lit by electricity.

Mr. LEWIS: Cannot the hon. Member answer my question?

Mr. McENTEE: I am answering it as I understood it. I only made reference to the cost of decoration, and I say unhesitatingly that the cost of decoration will be infinitely dearer in the cost of gas-lit houses than in the case of electrically-lit houses. I have had a gas cooker and a gas heater, but I have now got an electric cooker and an electric heater, and I say without any hesitation that the electrically heated house and the electrically cooked joint are infinitely better than the other, and no dearer.
When I was interrupted, I was making reference to the right, which I challenge, of any private organisation such as those who are promoting this Bill to endeavour to settle a large question of national policy by means of a private Bill, and I cannot help thinking that there is a great deal of personal interest being shown in regard to this Bill by its promoters and supporters. I cannot help feeling that those who are supporting the Bill would not support any Measure in-
troduced in the same way and for the same purpose which sought to interfere with the rights of the owners of privately-owned houses in the way in which it is proposed to interfere with the rights of the people who publicly own houses. The people have a right to determine this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "The tenants!"] If the people or the tenants are dissatisfied with the action of their council, they can easily settle the question at the next election down there, and I think it is generally true that when a local authority exercises its power against the will of the people when the next opportunity comes the people determine that they shall no longer exercise that power.
So far as I know—and I have made some inquiries—there is nobody in Kettering, except the gas company, who has raised any objection whatever to the methods of the local authority. There has not been one tenant on the council estate down there who has applied to the council for the right to put in gas. The gas company, in their memorandum, which I, in common probably with every other Member of the House, have received, say that there are tenants on the estate who desire to have gas, but they give no proof, and the fact is that not one tenant has made application to the local council to be permitted to put gas into his house. I ask hon. Members who are supporting the Bill, if that is not so, whether they will give the name and address of any tenant on the whole of the council estate at Kettering who has asked for the right or the opportunity to put in gas.
If the tenants do not want it, and it is obvious that they do not, and if the people of the town do not want it, and it is obvious that they do not, why should Members of this House be so anxious to provide an opportunity for the gas company in Kettering to exploit the people of the town to a greater extent than they are being exploited at present? One is led to believe that there must be sonic other motive than would appear on the face of it. I cannot believe that public policy is the only principle that is guiding Members in their attitude on this Bill, and I hope hon. Members of this House will not give a Second Reading to a Bill for which the people of the town
have not expressed any desire, for which the tenants of the houses have not expressed any desire, and to which the local authority is obviously opposed.

Mr. CLARRY: I have listened very carefully to the mover and seconder of the Amendment, and I have failed to find any adequate reason for the artificial agitation that is being brought against this Bill. The mover called attention to a circular letter issued by the National Gas Council, but when I asked him to point out the objectionable words, he said they w ere in the first paragraph. The only words in the first paragraph that I can find which might have any reference to that remark are:
A number of Members of Parliament, acting at the request of local authorities.
That does not seem to me objectionable, and I can only think that the real complaint is that this letter is too pungent and too much to the point for the hon. and gallant Member's liking.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I hope the hon. Member will not misrepresent me. I said not only the first paragraph, but the second, third and fourth paragraphs. I took exception to the language used there, and if the hon. Member reads the second paragraph, he will see the words "the normal practice." There have been dozens of instances of a new principle such as is embodied in this Bill in which the House has refused a Second Reading to the Bill.

Mr. CLARRY: Surely the hon. and gallant Member does not deny that the normal practice is a formal one when applied to Bills of this sort?

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: No, it is not so, and when the hon. Member has been here long enough, he will understand that it is not so.

Mr. CLARRY: The letter, to me, does not appear in the slightest degree objectionable, and I can only conclude that it is pungent and to the point, and that is really the hon. and gallant Member's objection to it, I am afraid. I think there must be a misunderstanding, because, although no case has been made out against the Bill, so far as I can see, it contains only two effective Clauses, Clauses 5 and 6. Clause 5 gives power to lay pipes in private streets, which is
a quite usual thing. There must be several hundred private gas Acts in existence to-day which contain that power, and there is nothing abnormal about that. The other Clause prevents the council imposing restrictions on the form of light, etc., to be used in council houses.
This is a question of freedom for the supply of gas and freedom for the tenant to have it if he wants it. There is no cost entailed to the local authority if this Bill becomes law, nor is there any obligation on the local authority or on the part of the tenants of this estate to have gas. It is their option to take it if they want it, and the local gas company have agreed—and this was considered six months ago—to bear the cost of laying the mains on the estate and to take the service pipe up to the meter in each case where it is asked for. It is purely a question of a contractual arrangement between the tenant and the gas company. He may have it if he wants it; if he does not want it, he can refuse it. The fact that no applications have been received by the urban district council does not surprise me a bit, because that would be the very last place to which anybody wanting gas would apply, because they do not supply it.
There are four estates. In the first there was an arrangement between the local authority and the gas company whereby the authority supplied the electric light and the gas company supplied for other purposes. In the three further estates which have been or are about to be erected, the local authority have refused to give the gas company permission to do these things for which they are asking in the Bill. The whole point is that it sets right an intolerable situation, a discrimination in Kettering which, to say the least of it, is not creditable to the high standard set by local administration.
Reference has been made to a resolution. I have the resolution here, and I dare say it will interest the House. It was passed by the housing committee of the Kettering Urban District Council on the 9th September last, and it says:
That the Kettering Gas Committee be granted permission to lay gas mains on the Piper's Hill housing estate for the purpose of enabling tenants to obtain a supply of gas for all purposes other than lighting,
free of any expense whatever to the council, the company to be responsible for the cost of any repairs or re-instatement consequent on the laying of gas mains or services.
That was passed by the housing committee, but a week later the council agreed, "That the recommendation be not adopted," so that there can be no question that the local council are asking for certain rights. First of all, they made the arrangement with the company. The housing committee, appreciating the position, was agreeable to the arrangement, which was turned down, however, for reasons that are best known to themselves, or that may he surmised by the Members of this House.

Mr. CAPORN: What was the vote?

Mr. CLARRY: The vote on the housing committee was five to three, and in the council 14 to three. It shows that the housing committee were more careful of the interests of their tenants on the estate than were the council as a whole. As to the question of general legislation, in the last Government the Minister of Health stated, on the question of discrimination in council houses, that there were 90 per cent, in which there was no question of injustice, so that there is only a remaining 10 per cent., of which Kettering is one, in which there is a desire to discriminate adversely against a local company. The situation in different parts of the country regarding that discrimination is so diverse that it would be extremely difficult to get general legislation to cover the point, and, as hon. Members know, it is not usual to bring in general legislation unless there are sufficient precedents in private legislation to warrant it.
As a matter of fact, there is one precedent to warrant this present step, and that happens to be Newport, the town which I have the honour to represent. In 1925 the corporation brought forward a Bill asking for certain powers with regard to land. Prior to that there had been a tendency to show discrimination against the gas company in Newport. In that Bill there were certain words which might be held to give a statutory confirmation of what they had been doing in the past, and the local gas company asked for an explanation and to have the matter put right. They took it to a Committee upstairs, and the Committee imposed a certain Clause. The House ought
to know what the Clause is because it constitutes the precedent which is said not to exist. The Clause is:
The corporation shall not make or impose under the powers of this section any term condition or restriction with respect to the form of light heat power or energy to be used in any house shop office warehouse or other building or on any lands or with respect to the taking by any particular local authority company body or person of any form of light heat power or energy.
In 1930 the Newport Corporation had to come again to Parliament, which accepted this protective Clause without question or opposition. It protects not only the gas company, but the purchasing rights of the tenants on the corporation estate. A good deal has been said on one side and another as to rights. The gas industry, which is a very big industry, has 10,000,000 consumers and probably serves 13,000,000 of our inhabitants. We can agree that they have not troubled Parliament unduly during the past. They have looked with a little alarm at the fostering of their rival by State aid and Departmental boosting, but they feel now that the attitude of Kettering has gone too far, especially when they are suffering—not making any fuss about it, but minding their own business and getting on with the job—from the fetters of obsolete legislation. Acts of 1847 and 1871 were rightly passed when gas was a monopoly. It is no longer a monopoly; it is subject to the fiercest competition, and yet a number of those old provisions remain to-day. It would be in the interests of the country, of the consumers, of the public generally, and of better service if that matter can be dealt with at some future date. It is apropos of the point of general legislation, for it is the line on which general legislation should take place on behalf of all. Little has been said why this Bill should not go upstairs for the hearing of proper evidence and arguments on the question of the arrogant feudalism which seems to react against a local trading company and the tenants of the housing estate of the council.

Mr. EASTWOOD: I have to claim the indulgence of the House for making a maiden speech; I also ask for, and I think that I deserve, the sympathy of the House, because I am the Member who was returned at the last election for the
Kettering Division. I want to deal with this Bill from two aspects—the local and the general. I have tried to ascertain the general feeling in Kettering on this Bill, and I say at once that it is "Let the tenant have his own choice; it is up to the tenant to make up his mind." Indeed, as far as I can ascertain, the urban district council itself is not unanimous in opposing this Bill. There are members of the council who hold the popular view that the tenant ought to make his own choice. I should hesitate very long before I disagreed with the common sense of the general opinion of the people of Kettering. They have a very strong civic sense, and a very strong common sense, which they showed unhesitatingly last October.
Although that is the general opinion of the citizens of Kettering, I cannot help thinking that, as far as this House is concerned, the matter goes much deeper than the general statement, "Let the tenant have his choice." There are certain rights which apply to ordinary landlords, and which apply even when the landlord happens to be an urban district council. I can imagine a situation where a landlord with a big estate might have his own electricity plant and two or three small houses to let. He might say to the persons who wanted those houses, "By all means you can have them and become my tenants; you shall pay reduced rents on the understanding that you help me out with my electricity plant and share electricity with me." That is a perfectly normal and proper position for a private landlord to take up, and that is a point of view that ought to be considered in the case of a landlord who happens to be a municipality. It is a point of view that has been taken in Kettering with successful results. The actual charge for electricity is 8d. per week and ¾d. per unit. This probably compares favourably with the charges in any London borough and of any private company. As a result of Kettering having taken up this electrical undertaking, they have saved each year since the War something in the neighbourhood of a twopenny rate. In addition, the council have been able to reduce the rates to 12s. 8d. in the £ a year, which speaks well for the municipal
government and for the electricity undertaking which the municipality have carried on.
The gas company supplies about 50 per cent. of the council houses in Kettering. As far as I can ascertain, they give good and cheap gas, and they are prepared to supply the extra houses without putting any charge on the local authority. That is a most important matter, for it means that whatever happens with regard to this Bill, there will be no charge put on the local authority. The London County Council recognise that. I understand that they allow their tenants to have either electricity or gas, but if this Bill gets into Committee it is important that the Committee should be certain that the municipality will not have to pay unpaid bills for gas of some tenants, and will not have to make good structural damage which may be done by the laying of pipes by the gas company. I have to say on behalf of the gas company that it is admitted generally that gas cooks much quicker than electricity, and that cooks prefer gas to electricity for cooking. On the other hand, there is no doubt that for lighting purposes electricity is probably much better than gas. I mention that because it may become necessary, if this Bill is passed, for the Kettering Urban District Council to be able to put themselves in a position in which all private electricity companies are, namely, to have the power to make a different charge for electricity for lighting and electricity for power. It is doubtful whether under this Bill the council will have that power. I suggest that if this Bill goes to Committee it is vital, from the point of view of the municipality, that they should have a right to make a different charge for light and a different charge for heat.
That is the local point of view. As far as I can see it the pros and cons of the argument between the gas company and the municipality are pretty even. Much has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the injustice of a municipality attempting to dictate terms to a private company. As far as Kettering is concerned, there is the utmost good feeling between the municipality and the gas company, and I cannot help thinking that it is unfortunate
that the National Gas Council of Great Britain and Ireland should have inserted a clause like this in the circular they have sent out:
The efforts of municipally-owned electricity undertakings constitute an abuse of their authority as landlords, and are a negation of fair play quite unworthy of British local administration. Moreover, they suggest the possibility of many unfair developments of municipal trading.
As far as Kettering is concerned, that paragraph is—I was going to say rubbish, but ought I to say "with respect it is rubbish"? There is no question of unfair trading as far as Kettering is concerned. The municipal undertaking and the gas company are perfectly sound concerns, competing in their own ways and are perfectly friendly towards one another.
I would say one word on the general standpoint. It is rather strange that this far-reaching principle should have to be dealt with in a private Bill. There are a large number of municipal undertakings supplying power or light. As a matter of fact, some 126 have done me the honour of communicating with me directly or indirectly, all of whom are anxious about their municipal undertakings should this Bill become law. Some of them have, perhaps, arbitrary regulations as far as their council houses are concerned; they differ from one another in the price they charge; they differ in the service they give and in the general rate that they charge. On the other hand, I ask hon. Members to remember that a private company supplying light or power exercises just as much of a monopoly as a muncipality. To my mind it does not make much difference whether the owner of a monopoly is a private company or a municipality; in each case it ought to give the best service it can to the people it supplies, and further, the efforts of the two ought to be co-ordinated as much as possible.
From the general point of view this question goes far beyond the concerns of the people of Kettering. It deals with a matter of principle which ought to be the subject of a general Bill and not of a private Bill. There is no question that over quite a large part of the country and in the case of both gas and electricity, there is discontent with the service and the price of light and heat. Letters from the suburbs of London which appear in the
newspapers bearing the addresses "The Hollies," or "The Firs," or "Sandringham," or "Balmoral"—whether they come from those addresses or are written in Fleet Street—show that there is considerable dissatisfaction with the prices charge by municipalities and private companies for heat, light and power. Therefore, I respectfully make this suggestion to this House, that perhaps it would be better to send the Bill to a Committee, so that the matter, can be further investigated there. It makes no difference to me as far as I am personally concerned. But I would point out that it is dealing with this matter in a piecemeal way to try to settle a great principle on the case of one municipality alone. The principle is so far reaching and so difficult to decide that it ought to be dealt with by the Government, after careful consideration, in a public Bill rather than in a private Bill.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. THORNE: I must congratulate the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Eastwood) upon his maiden speech. It seems appropriate that it should have been on the subject of gas, in view of the gas generated in this House in so many speeches good, had and indifferent. I have risen for the purpose of supporting the Bill. There has been no "Cabinet decision" on it so far as the Labour party is concerned—that is, there has been no decision by the Parliamentary Labour party as to whether we should or should not support it—and, therefore, I am committing no breach of any understanding between myself and my colleagues, for I am a party man and have always voted with my party, because one cannot run a Government machine unless one works with the majority of the party. Further, I hope that none of my colleagues will charge me—and I do not think they will—with any base motives, or with having any financial interest either in this or any other proposal that comes before this House. I am protesting against the arbitrary power exercised by the Kettering local authority exactly as I protested against the action of the Ministry of Health when, in days gone by, we in West Ham were promoting a municipal housing scheme and they endeavoured to prevent us from having fireplaces in some of the rooms. I would ask hon. Members, especially those who
are interested in the coal industry, whether, if a local authority were to decide that no fireplaces should be put in any of their houses, they would not enter a very energetic protest against it. At any rate I should, because I believe a local authority has no right to impose an embargo against people burning coal if they wish to do so, or using gas or electric light, whichever they may wish.
There are a large number of local authorities who have got both the gas and the electricity in their areas under their control and as far as I know not one of them has placed an embargo upon their tenants using either gas or electricity, but let them have both. In my humble judgment the Kettering local authority has no right to put an embargo upon its tenants using gas. Hon. Members know my views on all these questions. I would have all the gasworks and electricity stations under direct municipal control—and everything else under Government or municipal control. I am absolutely opposed to private interests in any shape or form. Nobody can charge me with having bolstered up private interests since I have been in this House. I have been a Member of the House for 24 years, continuous service, and I have never found myself in a more difficult position than I am in to-night. I am the vice-chairman of the Joint Industrial Gas Council, upon which there are representatives of municipalities and representatives of private companies and men are represented who are working not only at gasworks but also at generating stations, and we have had to take into consideration the position in a number of places where local authorities have placed an embargo on the tenants using gas, or vice versa, and we have had to enter an energetic protest. That was as far back as 1928. At that date the joint National Gas Council passed this Resolution:
This council views with concern that in certain cases local authorities, by inserting conditions in leases have interfered with the liberty of choice of the tenants in determining what form of heat, light, or power they shall use. We consider that tenants should be free to use whatever form of heat, light, or power they desire to use.
That was the unanimous decision of the Gas Council. On the borough council of West Ham we have 58 Socialist Labour members out of 64, but we have never
attempted to place an embargo upon the tenants of our council houses, and they have the right to use either gas or electricity. I do not wish to say that local authorities have exceeded their powers in this respect, but local authorities cannot do what they like. At any rate, we were not allowed to do what we liked in West Ham, where we had an embargo placed upon our local council, and a very rigid one, too. In West Ham the board of guardians at one time were allowing a scale of out relief which we thought would provide a reasonable standard of comfort and living, but we came into contact with the Minister of Health, and we had to conduct our business under the wing of that authority. A circular has been sent out preventing local authorities doing what they think proper. My hon. Friend the Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) spoke about the powers of landlords in his constituency, but the powers of the landlords in West Ham are on all fours with their powers in Waltham stow.

Mr. McENTEE: I referred to property owners everywhere.

Mr. THORNE: I would prevent the landlords from putting an embargo on tenants using gas if they wish to do so. Property owners should not have the power to prevent anybody using gas in their houses. I dare say that when this Measure goes to a Division, I shall find myself in very strange company to-night, but I am not very much concerned about that, and I shall probably get over it. I may be chastised by some of my own party, but surely a man is entitled to his own convictions. I do not know what attitude the Minister of Health is going to take upon this Measure. Hon. Members know that the principle contained in this Measure was discussed upstairs in regard to a housing scheme when an effort was made to insert a Clause similar to the one in the Newport Bill which prevented that council from exercising the powers that the Kettering company are trying to obtain at the present time. That was turned down in Committee, and when the Measure came to this House, another effort was made to insert the Clause, and the House of Commons again turned it down.
I tell hon. Members quite frankly that I am not interested in the Kettering Gas Company, or the Gas Light and Coke Company, or any such undertakings, but I have a right to promote the interests of the people I represent exactly in the same way as other hon. Members. I think that I am justified in the course I am taking, because there are a large number of men in the union with which I am connected working for local authorities, and working at generating stations. I am sure all those men working either at generating stations or for the local authorities will be in favour of tenants having the right to say whether they will use electricity or gas. I do not want to go into the pros and cons as to whether gas or electricity is better. So far as cooking is concerned, gas is miles ahead of electricity, but for lighting purposes electricity is far ahead. I am sure that gas will heat a room in half the time that electricity takes to heat it, and gas can be better regulated for heating purposes.
Some hon. Members may say that I am taking this course because I represent a large organisation engaged in the gas industry, numbering some 30,000 men. There are 120,000 men engaged in these undertakings in different parts of the country, but I hope my colleagues will give me credit for acting conscientiously when I say that I am not going to vote for this Bill because I want to promote the interests of the Kettering Gas Company, but because I think that a tenant should be at liberty to choose either gas or electricity.

Mr. BRIANT: I have no interest whatever in electric lighting or gas undertakings, but to me this Measure raises a very important matter. The landlord, obviously, has some rights in regard to his tenants. He has a right to see that the sanitary conditions are such as will not be harmful either to his own tenants or to their neighbours. He also has a right to see that tenants shall not interfere with the comfort of their neighbours. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Rhondda (Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan) said that Kettering wanted to be masters in their own house. There is another familiar saying that an Englishman's home is his castle. I strongly resent interference by a land-
lord, whether municipal or private, with a man's judgment as to his own convenience and taste. It is a very dangerous principle, because, instead of a man judging for himself, a body, certainly of elected people, judges for him on matters affecting his convenience. The next thing that will be said will be that ping-pong must not be played in these houses, as the children may strike their boots against the walls. I have been a supporter of municipal enterprise, and even of municipal trading, but, if there is anything that will set people against it, it will be this interference by municipal authorities in matters which are really matters for the people themselves, and in which they do not desire arbitrary interference by anyone else.
I notice, from the memorandum supplied by the Kettering District Council, that they are very anxious to protect the pockets of the tenants, but I think the tenants are quite capable of looking after their own pockets without advice from the council. If they think that the gas is dearer than electricity, they simply will not have it, and they are not compelled to have it, but I claim that every tenant should have the choice as to which he will have. Over and over again I have fought against private landlords who in my view have arbitrarily interfered with their tenants, and I am equally anxious to fight against municipal landlords if they take up the same arbitrary position with regard to their tenants. We have heard to-night that the council are anxious to make their electricity undertaking pay, but I wonder what this House, or anyone, would think if the London County Council, because it happens to own the tramway service in London, were to say, "As we own that tramway service, you may not travel on anything else but our trams." It is identically the same as if a local authority who owned a municipal washhouse were allowed to say that people must not wash anywhere except at the municipal baths. [HON. MEMBER: "Ridiculous."] Yes, it is ridiculous for municipal authorities to intervene in matters which should be entirely outside their concern, but should be left to the wisdom of the people who pay the rent.
I see that the circular states that there is no clause in the agreement entered into by the tenants which would impose
any restriction as to the form of lighting or heating that may be used, but what is the use of having an agreement which has no restrictions when you take care that in no circumstances can the tenants get the alternative form of light or heat? It seems to me to be absurd. Unquestionably, the average working-class family generally prefers gas, at any rate for cooking. It is said that the laying of the pipes spoils the houses, but the gas pipes have been already laid, and the only question is whether they shall be used for some other purpose than the original purpose. No damage will be done to the walls or to the houses, and, in fact, the Kettering District Council has already agreed to the laying on of gas in 50 per cent. of its houses, or, at any rate, the tenants are left a free choice.
I have sometimes been accused of having Socialist tendencies, but I am still sufficient of an individualist to maintain that the people should have as much liberty as possible. The landlord, whether private or municipal, gets his rent, and constant interference in such matters as this becomes irksome and irritating, and tends to make people dislike municipal control, because they think that worse is to come, as may indeed, be the case if Kettering has its way. I wish that we had the opportunity of voting, not merely on this particular Bill, but on the general principle; but it is no use waiting for that opportunity. The principle is being applied to Kettering, and it is not fair either to the gas workers or to the tenants that they should be thwarted in their desire to make their own choice. I am not suggesting that they should have electricity or should have gas. All that I ask, and I think it is quite fair to ask, is that, provided the tenant maintains the sanitary condition of his house and does not offend against the amenities of his neighbours, he should have the right to do as he likes in his own rooms for which he has paid.

Dr. HOWITT: In rising to make my maiden speech to the House, I ask for that indulgence which the House so kindly grants to one in my position. I would ask hon. Members, in whatever direction they may vote, to give me a sympathetic hearing on this, my first occasion. I am glad that the first speech I shall make in
this House will be one for the freedom and liberty of the individual. I consider that that freedom and liberty have been grossly infringed upon in the years since the War. I believe it to be entirely wrong to grant to any council the power to force either gas or electricity upon its tenants, and not to allow them the choice of having either or both. I am not thinking so much of gas companies or of electrical companies; I regret that I have no financial interest in either the one or the other; but I am very keen on the principle of this Bill. There are in this country to-day far too many laws restricting the liberty of the individual, and, if this Amendment were agreed to, it would be just one more restriction of that liberty which we all prize so deeply. People all over the country are sick to death of D.O.R.A. and all her descendants and relations, and this would only be one further restriction on the liberty of the people.
I am certain that, for whatever reason we were sent to this House, it was not to add to the restrictions on liberty. Every Member of this House, if he lives in London, has the advantage of being able to use either electricity or gas, and he propably uses them both. I do not think it is the wish of the country that anybody who is poorer should be denied that use. We know that, if this Bill is not passed, the poorer tenants in these council houses at Kettering will not be able to afford electric light, and will have to use candles and oil lamps. I speak as a doctor who spent many years of my life in Lambeth working under such conditions as that, and I can assure the House that it is very difficult indeed for a doctor to attend adequately to any patient in distress under such conditions. I have been told that in certain council houses in this country to-day this condition of affairs again exists, and that doctors who have been called in to confinement cases have had to carry on their work by the spluttering light of a candle. That is a monstrous thing to happen in these days. I am very keen, in supporting the Bill, that such a fate may not await the poor tenants of the council houses at Kettering. I ask the House to give the Bill its Second Reading. It is a Bill for fair play and equal opportunity and one which, if
passed, will remove a restriction of the liberty of the people.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I wish to compliment the hon. Member on the first occasion of his making a speech in the House. I am sure it was received with sympathy by everyone, and hope that it will be by no means the last occasion on which we shall have the pleasure of bearing him. I came here with an open mind. I have been circularised on behalf of the Bill and also by those who are opposed to it, and I found myself coming here with a wish to listen to the arguments on both sides, and to vote according as I was persuaded was right. It was the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment that convinced me firmly that I ought to vote for the Second Reading, and to voice my reasons for doing so. The predominant reason is that, I think, any tenant, where these opportunities can be provided for, ought really to have the choice as to whether he should have either gas or electricity, or both. The great majority of people are convinced that, while electricity is, perhaps, better for lighting purposes, for heating and cooking gas is preferable. The hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) said that he prefers electricity for both. I think, if he were to poll the vast majority of tenants, he would find that the great preference was for gas for cooking and heating.

Mr. McENTEE: Because they have not had the experience.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Surely it is right and proper to give people the choice so that they may try out from experience and then be able to use whichever source of heat, as well as light, they prefer, instead of being tied down to one only. It is from the point of view of the tenant primarily, and not on behalf either of the gas company or the municipality that I think the decision of the House ought to be given. The Mover of the Amendment spoke of the hardship to the municipality. What hardship ought there to be to the municipality? Is it that it would not get its revenue from electricity? Does that mean to say that, if they were quite free, the tenants would prefer to use gas?

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: The hardship would be this: They are building houses on the site. They have
already obtained experience in nearly 50 per cent. of the houses already built, and they will be able to avoid the extra cost with regard to the installation and with regard to the cutting up of the streets which, obviously, must take place.

9.0 p.m.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The extra cost of cutting up the streets would have been avoided in the first instance if the gas mains had been allowed to be put in when the streets were first made. On the other hand, the gas company, if it was allowed to put in its mains, would have to do it at its own expense and make the roads right. It has been said that this restoration of the roads would not be properly done. I cannot see what trust the hon. Member has in his borough surveyor or engineer to overlook it properly. I have had roads taken up time and again and, if they are properly looked after, they can be restored quite adequately.
The next argument adduced by the opponents of the Measure is that those who are supporting it are actuated by a desire to hurt municipalities, and that our love for tenants is something new found and strange. It would be easy to retort that the love of hon. Members opposite for landlords is something still newer and still more strange. I can well imagine that, had the case arisen of some private individual who was a landlord and who refused to give a block of his tenants the power to put in an alternative system of heating and lighting, we should have had fulminations from the benches opposite as to the abuse of their position by landlords, and it would be said that an end ought to be put to such a system.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Has not that actually happened in tens of thousands of cases?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): The right hon. Gentleman has not given way.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As a landlord myself, the very last thing that I. should ever dream of doing is to prevent any tenant having an alternative. That is one of the things that I believe should not be done by any landlord, whether a municipality or a private owner.
I take one further argument, that the tenants of the newer part of the corpora-
tion's buildings expressed no wish to have gas installed. I think that shows great simplicity on the part of the hon. Member for West Walthamstow. Is the real absence of requests to the corporation proof positive that gas would not have been welcomed? What would have been proof—the hon. Member carefully refrained from giving it—was that the tenants of the first part of the property that had been erected had ceased to use their facilities for getting gas, and that there was no more gas used in those houses. If he could adduce proof of that, there would be some reason for saying there was no need to put down gas mains for the second lot of houses, and unless and until we know that the first set of tenants have ceased using the gas that they can get, it is idle to say that the absence of requests by the others is any proof at all that gas it not desired. Those are argument which predispose one against the case for which they are brought, and, if I had listened to nothing else, I should have been inclined to take the opposite line from those two hon. Members. First and foremost, broadly, speaking, is it not right to let the tenant have a choice? It is quite clear, and it is being shown in experience in the most advanced communities, that the increase in the use of both electricity and gas goes hand in hand. In Chicago, where the use of electricity had grown most rapidly, the use of gas had increased alongside. The whole general experience is that both are requisite and both are desirable. Surely, it is too late in the day to say that the ordinary tenant should be denied the choice of one of them when it is perfectly simple and easy for him to have both. The ordinary procedure with regard to private Bills should be followed, and the Bill should be given a Second Reading by the House. There ought not to be an interference with the ordinary procedure when the case brought against the Second Reading is as weak as that which we have heard to-night.

Captain NORTH: In rising to address the House for the first time, may I crave its indulgence? My reasons for intervening in the Debate are, first of all, because I have received very considerable representations from my constituency; secondly, because the Bill to some extent defines the rights of private enterprise as
opposed to those of a public body; and, thirdly, because I believe that the matter affects the liberties of the individual citizen. For a great many hundreds of years, I believe, this House has always been the custodian of the rights of the citizen, and I feel that if hon. Members think that the Bill has been introduced because it is necessary to protect those rights, then in a very short time it will find its way to the Statute Book.
The facts in this case appear to be clear and simple. The Kettering Urban District Council decided to enter upon a housing scheme, and that the houses to be built should be equipped from an electrical power station in which they themselves have a very large interest, in fact, I think they own the whole of it. At the commencement of the scheme there appears to have been no objection to the houses being equipped with both electricity and gas, provided that gas was used only for certain purposes. We have been told already this evening that nearly 50 per cent. of the houses have already both gas and electricity. As the building scheme progressed, the council appeared to formulate the idea that it would be much more profitable if more electricity and less gas were used. Therefore, they decided that they would prohibit the Kettering Gas Company from supplying any further houses that were built, or houses which had not been supplied with the dual system of gas and electricity. Their only possible justification for reaching such an arbitrary decision would be one of expense. But the question of expense does not enter into the argument at all, because we have already been told that the gas company are prepared to bear the entire expense of putting the gas pipes into the houses from the mains.
Therefore that argument can be ruled completely out, and the position comes down to this. Here is a public body, supported by public funds, building houses for the public to live in. Instead of studying the interests and wants of their tenants they merely turned round, just as a dictator might turn round, and issued a decree saying, "You may use electricity, but only council electricity and you may use nothing else." That is an extremely arbitrary decree for any local body
to make, and it is obvious that the powers which were given to district councils were never intended to be used in that manner. Public bodies using public funds must realise that they are in a different position from undertakers of a private character, and, further, that, public money, whether, spent upon housing or anything else, is never intended, and is never given, for the purpose of throttling private enterprise. Why should not the tenants of these council houses be allowed to choose for themselves as to whether they should have a gas oven or an electric oven? As a matter of fact, I do not even know whether they are being offered an electric oven, but I put a charitable construction upon it. Why should not they be allowed to say whether they should have a gas geyser as opposed to an electrical geyser?
It is a most monstrous thing that any local body should interfere with the private domestic rights of the citizens in this matter. The gas company do not wish to compel the tenants in these council houses to take gas, but they say that they should be able to supply them with gas if they want to have it, and they also say that they see no reason why a council, a county council or a district council or any other body should be allowed to stop them from supplying gas to anyone who wants it. I, therefore, support the Bill, because I feel that a great injustice is being done, not only to the gas company, but to the rights of private citizens.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: I should like to congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Captain North) upon having passed through what is one of the greatest ordeals through which a man can pass, that of addressing the House of Commons for the first time. Disraeli has said in one of his books that the ordeal of speaking in the House of Commons for the first time is the most appalling that any man can face. The hon. and gallant Gentleman passed through the ordeal successfully, and I hope that we shall have the opportunity of hearing him many times in this House.
I wish to oppose the Amendment which has been put forward by the Opposition. I resent the action of the Kettering Urban District Council as an act of oppression and of tyranny. The spirit behind their attack is the spirit of tyranny and oppression, and it is the duty
of the House of Commons at all times, when it comes up against that spirit, to oppose and to crush it. The mover of the Amendment is a very old friend of mine and comes from the Rhondda Valley, which I Nave known for many years. When the Rhondda, Valley was flourishing, and anybody could get work in the mines it was the custom of the shopkeepers, when they wanted to save money, to buy houses. They got as tenants as large families as possible, and then they compelled the people to deal at their shops. One shopkeeper in Rhondda dealt in sausages, and if he had any sausages which were not sold on Saturday night they were taken round to the tenants. If the tenants did not buy the sausages, he got the tenants out of the houses as soon as he could.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I protest against these statements. I have been in Rhondda since 1882, and have been in public life for nearly 38 years, and I have never known an instance such as the hon. Member is trying to describe. It is true that some of the grocers at one time tried to get the houses under the auspices of the colliery owners. The rigmarole about sausages is certainly untrue in regard to the Rhondda Valley. I should like to have chapter and verse for the statement.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: I must leave it to the House to judge between the hon. and gallant Member and myself. I will tell him something else about the Rhondda Valley. It was the custom in the Rhondda Valley to place the collection of rents very largely in the hands of insurance agents, and it was a common thing for the insurance agent before he would "give the key" to prospective tenants, to require their names on his book. Therefore, in many cases people had to pay—

Mr. EDWARDS: Nonsense!

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: It is not nonsense. I know as much about it as the hon. Member. It was the custom to extort perhaps 8s. or 9s. for rent and 1s. for insurance. The action of these insurance agents and the action of the shopkeepers was no more tyrannical, despotic and oppressive than the action of the Kettering Council. It took a different form, but the oppression and the
tyranny were there. I should like to call attention to what has happened in other places. I am glad to think that not all public bodies are inspired by the spirit of oppression. May I call attention to what has been done by the London County Council? Up to 31st March, 1931, the London County Council had erected over 52,000 houses, finding accommodation for 236,000 people. Since 31st March, 1931, many other houses have been erected, and the total expenditure of the county council on housing schemes has been about 240,000,000. On 17th February, 1931, the county council passed the following resolution, and I would like the Kettering Council to take note of it and follow it:
That as far as practicable it is desirable, provided that no additional charge on the rates is involved thereby, that equal opportunity should be given to gas companies and electricity supply authorities to instal their services in the council's dwellings, and that the council's tenants should be afforded freedom of choice in the use, wherever available, of gas or electricity, or both.
I will also mention Woolwich, which began badly but turned over a new leaf. In 1925 the Metropolitan Borough Council of Woolwich commenced the erection of a large housing estate known as the "Page Estate." In connection with that estate the council passed a resolution that the tenants should not be permitted to take gas for any purpose. In spite of that fact, however, one tenant requested a supply of gas, and the South Metropolitan Gas Company, in accordance with their statutory obligations, afforded a supply. Notice to quit was immediately served by the borough council upon the tenant. That is probably what would happen in Kettering if any tenants of the council houses were to ask for, and to insist upon a supply of gas. As the tenant refused to give up possession, a summons was issued in the county court, but before the hearing of the summons the Municipal Reformers obtained a majority of two on the Woolwich Council. The council immediately indicated that no steps would be taken against any tenants on the estate who took a supply of gas for any purpose. Since then the Woolwich Council has started a housing estate of 500 acres, and they have notified that the tenants on this estate are to have absolutely unrestricted freedom in the choice of the medium of heating,
lighting and cooking which they desire to take. These are the actions of enlightened municipalities. Let those opposite try to persuade the Kettering Council to follow suit.

Mr. PIKE: My support of this Bill is based chiefly on the fact that the opposition to the Bill, by monopolistic power, financed from the pockets of the ratepayers, is attempting completely to eliminate private enterprise of a competitive nature in whatever industry they choose to move. The opposition so far as we have heard it to-night is neither more nor less than an attempt to bring about at some future date a system of back-door Socialism which the electors of this country have refused to allow to enter through the front door. I am convinced that if this Bill were to fail it would give not only a lead to local authorities throughout the country which have not already adopted or attempted to adopt the Kettering policy, but it would also give some inclination to those authorities to think that a precedent had been set to enable them to go further in regard to other commodities of life.
It was said in this House during the attempted passage of the Local Authorities (Enabling) Bill that we were living in municipal houses, washing in municipal water, lighting by municipal electrical power, riding on municipal trams and omnibuses, walking on municipal roads, being educated in municipal schools, playing on municipal recreation grounds, reading in municipal libraries, being nursed in municipal hospitals and finally being buried in municipal cemeteries. To-night, so far as the opposition to the Bill is concerned, we see a definite attempt to enforce upon the people a system which will ultimately prevent us, when we want to see a little more light in the darker subjects of municipal activity, from having a choice of illumination suited to our own vision. I can see the time arriving, if the opposition get their way, when they would say: "We have a delightful municipal farm, a delightful herd of municipal cattle, fed on municipal food, a delightful municipal slaughter-house, wonderful municipal butcher shops, municipal butchers, and municipal retail prices. Therefore, now that you are compelled to roast your meat by municipal power, you must be
compelled to buy your meat from municipal authorities and organisations." This is a very dangerous line of development, and it is because I can see at the back of the opposition to this Bill a tendency towards Socialism in all services, that I propose wholeheartedly to support the Bill. Much has been said this evening on the question of private enterprise. This is what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) on 14th February, 1930:
If it be true that private enterprise in all circumstances can compete successfully with public enterprise, why should private enterprise be in the least afraid of the powers asked for by this Bill?
That Bill was the Local Authorities (Enabling) Bill. He concluded by saying:
I submit that public enterprise can only survive if it gives a better and cheaper service to the community."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th February, 1930; col. 842, Vol.235.]
Here you have a position in Kettering—and possibly throughout the whole of the country if the opposition had their own way—where public enterprise, whether it be successful or unsuccessful, will function by virtue of its monopolistic power, and where private enterprise will be completely squashed out as far as competing for the purpose of producing a better service at a cheaper rate is concerned. That, in my humble opinion, is destructive to the most valuable enterprise of life in this country or any other country. It destroys initiative and incentive towards progress in all industrial activity, and the more we get rid of that state of affairs, the better will be the conditions in the country.
The hon. Member for East Rhondda (Lieut.-Colonel Watts - Morgan), in seconding the Amendment, told the House that the Kettering Urban District Council were not afraid of competition. It strikes me as rather peculiar, if they are not afraid of competition, that, in respect of 60 per cent. of their housing sites and the houses they have erected, they refuse to allow the local gas corporation, which is privately owned, to compete against them. It is very significant that they are afraid of competition. They are not only afraid of competition which the Kettering Gas Bill would bring against them in the supply of power, but
they are also afraid that the community of Kettering will realise that gas is not only more economical and—I will not say cleaner—as clean as electrical power, and is certainly from the point of view of power cheaper than the electrical power which they can supply. If they are not afraid of competition, let them prove it conclusively by giving to the Kettering Gas Company the power to compete, and giving to the community of Kettering the right to choose for themselves which power they will use at the earliest possible date, and so save this House and many other concerns throughout the country an enormous amount of expense in future in so far as the application of legislation on this matter in respect of other localities is concerned.
9.30 p.m.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. W. Thorne) referred to the coal industry in regard to houses that might be built by the corporation without fireplaces. He asked the House to realise the great wrong and damage that would be done to the coal industry if a corporation inflicted an injustice of that description. If this Bill is defeated tonight, it will be one of the greatest possible incentives to all Socialist organisations to create a position of that description, and more and more monopolistic powers not only as regards gas and electricity, but every other commodity of life. It is the duty of every hon. Member, in view of the widespread depression throughout the country and unemployment in practically every trade, to open his arms freely to any Measure that tends in any way to create more enterprise, and consequently more employment for those who are so sorely in need of it.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Ernest Brown): I intervene for a moment to express the views of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. I think hon. Members will agree that the crux of the whole problem was put in the admirable speech of the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Eastwood). He was quite aware that there was something to be said on both sides. I do not rise for the purpose of discussing the general merits raised by Clause 6, but only to say that my right hon. Friend has given this
matter very careful consideration, and it is his clear opinion that this Bill should go to a Committee of the House where the issues can be thrashed out, evidence heard on both sides and a reasoned decision come to. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering that he will find that every one of the points, including those he put so skilfully, on the one side and the other will be adequately, fairly and competently dealt with in a Committee of this House, if the House should decide to send the Bill there.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I am rather disappointed that the hon. Member who speaks for the Government failed to express a personal opinion on this Bill. I happen to recall that on 8th July, 1930, when a similar Clause to this was moved by hon. Members then sitting on these benches, the hon. Gentleman, apparently after due consideration, voted against that Clause being embodied in the Housing Bill of 1930. I presume he thinks to-day as he thought then, but, unfortunately, he has been persuaded by his right hon. Friend to express a different opinion on this Bill. I appreciate that his position is rather a difficult and delicate one. The hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike) made a very sound speech on private enterprise and municipal enterprise. The right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) also made the case one of private enterprise versus municipalisation, plus power being left in the hands of the private occupant of any dwelling to determine for himself the service he should choose.
Almost every speaker, including the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Clarry), deliberately omitted to mention what is, after all, the vital thing that we are discussing. I want to go back to what we regard as the general principle confronting the House at this moment. It is not a question of private enterprise versus municipal enterprise. It is the question of the great national principle as to whether housing authorities should be restricted in the conditions they lay down for the tenants in any part of their property. I suggest that while the general principle may be one that ought to be discussed in this House and settled once for all, so that it may be applied from Land's End to John o' Groats, and
not merely by small local authorities, this is an inappropriate moment to settle such a great national principle in a very small private Bill. From that point of view, whatever the merits of the case of the Kettering Gas Corporation or the Kettering Urban District Council may be, such a principle ought certainly not to be settled in a private Measure, but ought to be dealt with in a general Bill brought in by the Government of the day.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member has referred to me. Might I ask him whether the principle has not been raised by the municipality in the first instance and not by the gas company?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I have promised to make a reference in a few moments to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and I will deal faithfully with the points that he submitted. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have the power to pass any Bill that they desire. Those hon. Members who were in the House when this discussion opened at 7.30 were in no doubt in the first few minutes as to what was going to happen to the Bill. It was never intended by hon. Members that any consideration should be given to the principles embodied in it. Their minds were made up. They intended to give no consideration to the point of view of the Kettering Urban District Council. It is because they refused to look at the principle as it affected the local authority that I said that this discussion started, and has continued, from the wrong end. If hon. Members say that the merits of the case may be dismissed, we do not object to that, but we submit that a comparatively small urban district council ought not to be called upon by the Kettering Gas Company, or by this House, to bear the burden of contesting a principle which will apply to the whole country.
Therefore, we suggest that this Bill is inappropriate, and that it ought not to receive a Second Reading. The company had an opportunity in 1929, when the local authority was elected, to extend the area and to raise the question of provisions of this kind. They failed to do so. They made no reference when a subsequent opportunity was given in this House in a general sense on 8th July,
1930. At that time, the House rejected a Clause similar to the one that is embodied in the private Bill which we are now discussing. We repeat that this is not only a side wind to secure a general principle, but it is a very subtle method of establishing a principle in a private Bill that ought not to be employed by any private company in any part of this country.

Mr. CLARRY: May I interpose to say that the precedent has already been created as I explained in respect of Newport. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman understands that there is only a difference of 10 per cent. in the whole of the houses erected by the municipal authorities. Mr. Greenwood said in the last Parliament that in 90 per cent. of the municipalities there was no question of this supply

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am fully acquainted with all that my right hon. Friend said when he replied to the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley), who said that in 80,000 houses erected by local authorities certain conditions were laid down for the tenant. The ex-Minister for Health said that since the War we had erected approximately 1,250,000 houses, and that the problem is a small one and only applies to a very small number. The principle is as sound to-day as it was then. If we are to deal with the principle, we ought to deal with it in a general way and not incur the financial expense in which the Kettering Urban District Council will be involved if this Bill secures a Second Reading and goes to Committee. It is obvious that, if this Bill receives a Second Reading, it is almost bound to pass through Committee and to receive a Third Reading. The inevitable consequence would be that in all subsequent cases this Bill would be regarded as a precedent. [Interruption.] An hon. Member says, "Hear, hear." He understands clearly enough. He is in no doubt that he and his colleagues are attempting to establish a national principle through the medium of a small private Bill. That ought not to happen.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health should note what happens in the Division to-night. I notice that in the Division on 8th July, 1930, upon a Clause identical with the one embodied in the Kettering Bill, the present Home Secretary voted against it
and so did the Secretary for Mines, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), and many other hon. and right hon. Members, after they had listened to the Debate, read the proceedings in Committee, or had heard the Debate on the Report stage. They voted against the Clause by about 254 to 150 votes. The composition of the House is changed, but the principle remains the same. Hon. Members are in a position to pass the Bill, but it does not follow that in passing Bills they are doing the right thing either by a local authority or by the nation as a whole.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) said he came to the House with an open mind and that he intended to listen to speeches from both sides and make up his mind according to the argument. When he spoke, his mind was fully made up to vote for the Second Reading of the Bill, and he told us that he had reached that conclusion because the local authority had given no proof or clear indication as to why they were denying their tenants the right to choose between gas and electricity. The right hon. Gentleman said—

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I think if the hon. Member will read my speech he will find no foundation for making that statement.

Mr. WILLIAMS: It is within the recollection of the House, and I shall be quite willing to read the right hon. Gentleman's speech to-morrow and, if it is clear that I have misinterpreted what he has said, then I will withdraw my remarks. He said that the Kettering Council has given no clear indication as to why they were denying the tenants the right of choice. If the right hon. Gentleman will read a statement submitted by the local authorities, I think he will find that the reason is quite clear. That statement says that the 423 houses in which there was a dual service were first erected by the council. It goes on:
Having regard to their experience in connection with the houses and in view of the urgent necessity for reducing constructional costs so as to permit of houses being let at the lowest possible rent, the council decided not to incur the expense of a dual installation in connection with the remaining houses, which were accordingly wired
during construction for a supply of electricity for lighting and heat.
The local authority, be it remembered, stepped into the houses, after private enterprise had stepped out, as was the case in almost every area in every part of Great Britain. It is always the case with private enterprise that if no profit is forthcoming it steps to one side for the local authority to come in. The local authority in this case was not a Socialist authority. It had 12 Co-operative and Labour members, 12 Liberal and Conservative members, and one Independent, and by a majority of 16 it declared in favour of adopting the policy embodied in paragraph 6 of this statement.
Those who have spoken so far from the Government side say in effect, "The council have no right to determine what their housing policy shall be." I know they put it in different language, but they say in effect, "Why should the council tenants be denied the right to determine whether they shall have gas or electricity?" The local authority is responsible for the finances of these houses and is responsible for determining which is the cheapest method of giving the maximum service to its tenants. If the tenants are disappointed with the action of the local authority, every three years they can dismiss its members. They have an opportunity of expressing appreciation for services rendered or of showing resentment by clearing the members out of office. But it is contended now that the local authority shall be permitted to do only what the private company thinks it ought to do. That is the purport of this Bill. The Bill states clearly in Clause 6:
The council shall not in or in connection with the selling, leasing, letting or other disposal of any house, shop, office, warehouse or other building or any lands for the time being belonging or leased to them. …
do certain things or make certain provisions. There is no suggestion in the Bill that the private company shall be denied the right to do certain things or to lay down certain provisions, but the local authority is restricted from making conditions applying to its own houses. The private company is in business, not for the service it can render, but for the profit it can make from that service. The company is not concerned about the choice of the tenants; it is concerned only with the profit it can derive from
the supply of gas at a price which the company itself determines. If the council's tenants or the tenants of any other property are not satisfied with the service of the company they cannot dismiss the directors. Like soldiers they can grumble, but they must continue to pay. In attempting to impose these restrictions on a local authority those who support the Bill are not serving the best interest of the nation or of local government.

Mr. PIKE: Does the hon. Member suggest that the local council is not actuated by a desire to make profit?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am sure that no local authority ought to be actuated by a desire to make profit. It all depends, of course, on how one interprets "profit." If hon. Members regard profit as merely £ s. d., I see no reason why local authorities should endeavour to make profit. If, however, hon. Members regard profit as the best possible service at the least possible price, to that extent all local authorities ought to strive for the maximum profit. If the House is going to tell local authorities that they should be subservient to private profit-making companies, clearly that is not going to improve local government. It will make local government much more difficult in future than it has been in the past. If popularly-elected councils are not capable of determining what is best for their own people, what private company is likely to be?
It may be asked what we would do if a local authority denied a tenant the right to have a coal fire. That question has not arisen here. I can say, however, that in certain mining areas where the mine workers received so much coal per month, before the advent of council houses the usual fire grate and copper for wash-day were available. In the council houses a gas copper was provided, and at the outset some of the tenants objected strenuously. Was the council justified in insisting on the gas copper? I did not then hear of any protest from the National Gas Council or from the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike). These tenants more recently have been brought round to the view that a gas copper is much cleaner and more convenient than a coal fire copper, and is no loss to the tenant. From that
point of view it may be argued that to deny a person the right of doing what he or she likes is quite a good argument.
My main point, however, is not whether private enterprise or municipal Socialism is better. My main point is that this big general principle ought not to be settled in a private Bill. No small local authority ought to be called upon to bear the brunt of a fight in Committee over this Bill. The National Gas Council, who have not been very generous to Members of the House, should not be able to establish now a principle that they were unable to establish in a general sense only about 18 months ago. For those reasons and because we think that local authorities ought not to be subservient to private profit-making companies some of us will vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Divide!

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: It is customary sometimes in this House, I may inform some new Members, when a Debate has been wound up on one side, to permit a few observations to be made on the other side and we are discussing an issue of such fundamental importance that I think it is worth while staying just a few minutes longer, while we consider the merits or the demerits of the proposal involved in this Bill. The weakness of the case against the Bill has been well illustrated by the speech of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). In order to sustain his case he quoted paragraph (6) of the statement issued by the council and implied that it had something to do with the Bill which is under discussion. Now that paragraph explains why the local housing committee decided not to pipe the houses. But under this Bill it is not, proposed to compel the council to pipe the houses and therefore paragraph (6) has no bearing on the issue. Yet the hon. Member for Don Valley submits it as the main technical ground on which his case is based. If an hon. Member is reduced to those straits in making his case it indicates how weak that case must be.
The hon. Member tried to reinforce his argument by introducing an element of prejudice in relation to profits. There is only one thing wrong with this country at this moment and it is that not enough profits are being made. It is no ground
for dissatisfaction if profits are being made but rather a ground for profound satisfaction and that was purely an argument of prejudice introduced by the hon. Member. When profits are called "divi" by the co-operative societies they are regarded as rather high-minded. Profits do not degenerate because of the individuals who receive them, or the reverse. The hon. Member suggested, as the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) also did, that the purpose of the Bill was to enable a gas company to exploit tenants who would not take their gas. It is amazing that the case for the rejection of this Bill on its Second Reading should have been supported by arguments of so little intellectual merit.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Member allow me to draw his attention to paragraph (7) of the case sent out by the National Gas Council. That is where the question of profit-making was introduced into the Debate. They suggest the possibility of an unfair development of municipal trading. That is grossly unfair, we suggest, when referring to a Private Bill. It is raising a vast principle, but that was introduced long before I spoke.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: As we are quoting from circulars may I in turn call the hon. Member's attention to the circular sent out by the Incorporated Municipal Electricity Association? That is based, not on the ground of electricity versus gas, but on the ground of municipal ownership, and it was purely on the ground of municipal ownership that hon. Members opposite commenced to object to the Second Reading of the Bill. Therefore, it was not the National Gas Company, whose memorandum I have not got, who brought that element into the Debate but those who by their opposition prevented this Bill receiving a Second Reading, after Prayers, on the day it was first put down. The hon. Member said that the Bill raised a principle which ought not to be raised in a Private Bill. But who raised that principle? It was not the Bill which raised the principle. The Kettering Council raised the principle by denying to their tenants what practically every other tenant can get. If it costs the council a lot of money it will serve them right for raising that principle which is a bad principle. It was not those who are supporting liberty and individualism who raised that principle. I
hope that the House will go to a Division on the Bill, and that the Bill will be carried by a thumping majority as a clear indication that we are getting tired in this country of invasions of liberty from all quarters.
I do not approach this subject with any prejudice as to whether it is gas or electricity which is involved. I was brought up as an electrical engineer, and for the 18 months that I was at the Board of Trade I had, subject to the jurisdiction of my President, some responsibility for the gas industry. I think I can see the two problems, but this is not an issue of whether gas is so much a therm, or electricity so much a unit. It is an issue of Whether the tenant shall be free to have what he wants. It is only six weeks ago since nearly every newspaper in the country gave nearly a column of space to an isolated instance of a single landlord in Wimbledon who refused to allow a tenant to instal the telephone. There was no person in this country who did not take the view that a landlord by using his rights, in that monopolist spirit, was invading the principles of liberty. It is because we stand here supporting the principle of liberty, it is because the spirit behind the opposition to the Bill is the spirit of monopoly, and we are opposed to monopolies whether private or municipal, that we hope the House will give the Bill its Second Reading by a majority which will be a clear indication of what the House thinks on the question of principle involved.

Mr. LEWIS rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Divide!

10.0 p.m.

Mr. LEWIS: I think those who have been in the House since half-past seven o'clock will agree that this subject is of such interest and importance that there is no particular reason why the discussion should be brought to an end at ten o'clock. The most remarkable thing about this Bill is the fact that it should be necessary to introduce it at all. We have had the spectacle of this public authority using their position as landlords of their housing estate, to give what are, in effect, special privileges to the electricity supply undertaking which they control. We are told that out of 867 houses, in 423 no gas is allowed for
lighting, and in the remainder, no gas is allowed for any purpose. I think most Members will agree that, in the case of a private landlord, such conduct would be open to grave objection. In the case of a municipality it is open to additional objections.
The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) is very anxious that the issue of municipal trading should not be raised. I can understand that anxiety. He did not wish attention called to the prejudiced position in which this district council stands. If a private owner in Kettering decided to build houses, he would not be able to go to the gas company and compel them to contribute to the cost of building those houses or maintaining that estate. Yet that is what the district council can do and what the district council does. The gas company are among the largest ratepayers in the district. They are compelled to contribute to the erection of these houses and the maintenance of the estate. Now on top of that, the district council say: "You must not do any business with the tenants." That brings in the second objectionable feature in the action of the council. Quite apart from the general consideration that a tenant should be allowed to choose what form of heating or lighting he requires, the situation, to my mind, is not creditable to the district council concerned, and I do not think they make it any better by the statement that they have circulated to Members of this House in support of the Motion for the rejection of the Bill on Second Reading. The hon. Member for Don Valley pointed out that, in his opinion, the principal ground for objecting to the Bill was that it raised a question of general principle. I think he is right there, and I think that is the principal ground put forward by the council. They say:
The Bill raises a question of general principle in connection with the operations of housing authorities generally throughout the country which, the council submit, is inappropriate for consideration in connection with a private Bill.
Is not that tantamount to saying that, because most municipalities do not abuse their position as landlords on their housing estates, and because in consequence it has not been found necessary to make any general law on the subject, there-
fore, when a municipality does abuse its position, as Kettering has done, this House should not be allowed or asked to intervene? I submit that that is a very thin argument.
So far as the general principle is concerned, it would seem rather to cast doubts on the wisdom of making municipalities landlords and giving them the control of big industrial undertakings. It is an illustration of the dangers to which we should be subject if they were allowed to go more widely into trade, as many hon. Members opposite wish them to do. If it is true that the gas industry as a whole suffers under many disabilities, I see no reason, therefore, why this particular gas company should be asked to put up with a special injustice, and I hope the House will give a Second Reading to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — DESTRUCTIVE IMPORTED ANIMALS BILL [Lords].

Again considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Postponed Proceeding resumed.

Clauses 6 (Offences, etc.), 8 (Saving in respect of animals kept for exhibition, etc.), 10 (Power to extend provisions of Act to other destructive non-indigenous animals), 11 (Interpretation), and 12 (Short title and extent) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Compensation.)

7.—(1) If an order is made under Section one of this Act prohibiting absolutely the keeping of musk rats, any person who on the date of the order and on the twenty-fourth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, was keeping musk rats for profit in Great Britain shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be entitled to receive from, the appropriate department compensation in respect of any pecuniary loss which he may suffer by reason of his being required in consequence of the making of the order to destroy his musk rats and in respect of the value of any structure or equipment erected or provided by him which is rendered useless, or of less utility, by reason of the prohibition contained in the order:

Provided that the compensation payable to a person under this section shall not in any case exceed the amount which would be
payable to him if he had, at the date when the order came into operation, possessed only the same number of musk rats and the like structures and equipment as he possessed on the said twenty-fourth day of June.

(2) A claim for compensation under this section shall be made within three months after the date on which the order came into operation, and any question in dispute as to whether compensation is payable under this section, or as to the amount of any compensation so payable, shall be determined by a single arbitrator to be appointed, in default of agreement, by the Lord Chief Justice of England or, as the case may be, by the Lord President of the Court of Session.—[Sir A. Sinclair.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Expenses of executing Act.)

9. Any expenses incurred under this Act by the Minister, the Secretary of State, or
the Department of Agriculture for Scotland shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament—[Sir A. Sinclair.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Fourteen Minutes after Ten o'Clock.